Different EDM-NYI Trade Scenarios

[Abe Vukota]

Yes. There is no straw man. Do you know what a straw man is? This is just a case of someone presenting opinion as fact.

Another frequent event is that someone sees that I'm challenging a persons presentation of opinion as fact and presumes that I have a different opinion on the matter. Not the case at all. I simply cannot stand by idly while someone puts forward opinion as though it were proven fact.

No one knows how the management team of the Edmonton Oilers feels about drafting Nail Yakupov other than that management team.

Did the Islanders ever come out and say, "Boy, Mikko Makela is mediocre; guess we blew it!" while he was on the team? Did they publicly disavow Scott Scissons? It's a pretty safe bet that Nail isn't what the Oilers hoped he would be. If you're expecting a press conference about how he hasn't met expectations, that won't be happening. Why would a GM badmouth a young player with significant trade value, and put himself in the crosshairs at the same time?

Why there's a thread about trading with Edmonton I'll never really understand, but it sucks me in every time. I still think this is a last place team one move away from being second to last. EDIT: I mean the Isles, not the Oilers.

 

[Abe Vukota]

I don't BELIEVE anything. I accept the facts as they are and disregard the ones that are purely conjecture.

The other poster presented conjecture as fact, which it isn't.

Don't confuse my refusal to accept opinion as fact to be anything other than exactly that. I'm not hoisting some alternative opinion as fact, I'm simply refusing to give credit to someone else's.

Facts are facts. I HATE when someone presents something other than fact and insists it is true. Let's stick to the facts.

If a statement is purely conjecture, it can't be a fact. So either enclose "fact" in quotes or use the word "statement" (i.e. "I accept the statements that are factual and disregard the ones that are purely conjecture").

We're all pedants at heart!

 

[LeapOnOver]

Yow, Janny the Nanny is what he used to be known as. Could go into the corner with a pocket full of eggs and come out with all unbroken.
High skill guy but as inferred, allergic to any contact in a collision sport

He could get away with it the time he played. Sure, his game would translate poorly now, but back then he wasn't bad at all.

 

[RWWallpaper]

Did the Islanders ever come out and say, "Boy, Mikko Makela is mediocre; guess we blew it!" while he was on the team? Did they publicly disavow Scott Scissons? It's a pretty safe bet that Nail isn't what the Oilers hoped he would be. If you're expecting a press conference about how he hasn't met expectations, that won't be happening. Why would a GM badmouth a young player with significant trade value, and put himself in the crosshairs at the same time?

Why there's a thread about trading with Edmonton I'll never really understand, but it sucks me in every time. I still think this is a last place team one move away from being second to last. EDIT: I mean the Isles, not the Oilers.

I bought a Mikko Makela jersey at the Coliseum for $225 two weeks before they sent him out west...and that was almost two weeks pay at the time...#FML

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Did the Islanders ever come out and say, "Boy, Mikko Makela is mediocre; guess we blew it!" while he was on the team? Did they publicly disavow Scott Scissons? It's a pretty safe bet that Nail isn't what the Oilers hoped he would be. If you're expecting a press conference about how he hasn't met expectations, that won't be happening. Why would a GM badmouth a young player with significant trade value, and put himself in the crosshairs at the same time?

Why there's a thread about trading with Edmonton I'll never really understand, but it sucks me in every time. I still think this is a last place team one move away from being second to last. EDIT: I mean the Isles, not the Oilers.

I'm not expecting anything. I just don't think people should pretend that it is a fact that Edmonton regrets drafting him (or any other conjecture for that matter). We don't know what the Edmonton Oilers management are thinking at all, we're not mind readers.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

If a statement is purely conjecture, it can't be a fact. So either enclose "fact" in quotes or use the word "statement" (i.e. "I accept the statements that are factual and disregard the ones that are purely conjecture").

We're all pedants at heart!

The bolded portion is exactly my point. I will endeavor to be more precise.

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

Also not a straw man.

Ok. I know what a straw man is. I'm not accusing you of using straw man arguments. I'm merely questioning a person who complains about others using knavish argument methods while engaging in different yet equally knavish methods themselves.

Sheesh.

Kreskin the Magnificent is supposed to read minds. That's the reference. As in "can you read his mind?" The answer, of course, being no. I'm sorry this makes you sad.

It doesn't make me sad. Is that your opinion based on conjecture? Are you presenting this as fact?

I know who Kreskin is. You're comparing the poster to a professional trickster and charlatan. This, IMO, is designed to attack the integrity of the person making the statement, all without addressing the content of his statement.

Yeah, THIS is actually an ad hominem.

What now?

I'm just not emotionally connected to any of this. I don't know why you so often claim that I am. You shouldn't do that. It isn't true. I'm telling you it isn't true.

Ok. I don't really believe that, but ok.

Maybe that is something that happens to you in your life and you're now projecting it onto me?

Please.

 

[Abe Vukota]

I'm not expecting anything. I just don't think people should pretend that it is a fact that Edmonton regrets drafting him (or any other conjecture for that matter). We don't know what the Edmonton Oilers management are thinking at all, we're not mind readers.

So when Rex Ryan says, "We have two good quarterbacks on this team," you think that's more accurate than my assumption, which is that Rex Ryan knows his QBs are terrible?

You don't have to be a mind-reader to use common sense to draw a conclusion.

 

[Abe Vukota]

I bought a Mikko Makela jersey at the Coliseum for $225 two weeks before they sent him out west...and that was almost two weeks pay at the time...#FML

That sucks. I loved him too though. I remember the yearbook with Mikko on the cover (and maybe a couple of other players, not sure). He looked like I imagined a hockey player should look. Sleek, be-mulleted, and not American.

 

[IslesFan94]

Reinhart Bailey and 2016 2nd for Hall. MacT would love To have Reinhart and knows it will take a lot to bring him there.

 

[Seph]

I'm not expecting anything. I just don't think people should pretend that it is a fact that Edmonton regrets drafting him (or any other conjecture for that matter). We don't know what the Edmonton Oilers management are thinking at all, we're not mind readers.

It is pretty common in casual conversation to state as fact things you assume to be true based on the existing evidence. No one can prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist but it's pretty pointless to get upset with someone for stating it doesn't exist. If you can easily interpret what a person means from they said, and I think it's pretty obvious he did not mean he could read minds, then arguing over his word choice is being didactic sheerly for the sake of being didactic. It should not be considered always necessary to state you are not basing your statement on the existence of super powers; really, you should only have to state that if you actually are basing your statement off of your own super powers, as that is not something readers could readily assume.

If you want to present a counter argument that his assumption is unlikely to be true based on opposing evidence, you could have a relevant point. But saying something isn't factual, when really, almost nothing we discuss is factual (hell, even advanced stats are not 100% accurate due to differing definitions of shot attempts and the difficulty in telling if a shot is going on net, but I never see anyone post those with a margin of error listed), doesn't add to the discussion in a meaningful way.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Ok. I know what a straw man is. I'm not accusing you of using straw man arguments. I'm merely questioning a person who complains about others using knavish argument methods while engaging in different yet equally knavish methods themselves.

I'm not so emotionally connected to Nail Yakupov as to be hurt by someone thinking he's not very good. My life is filled with losses and disappointment, I'm a criminal defense attorney. Prosecutors and judges challenge me every day. I make arguments which are rejected constantly and there is nothing I can do about it. I visit people in jails every week. And all that defeat ACTUALLY matters because lives are at stake.

If you consider one person's one-sentence "challenge" of my views on Nail Yakupov to be "wounding", you're outright ridiculous. Your accusation that I'm so petty as to be wounded by that is more wounding, albeit not nearly enough to even register on my "wounding scale".

As always, I simply cannot stand people pretending that their personal conjectures are proven fact. They're not.

When I speak about Kreskin, I speak about a "mind-reader". I speak of him with some frequency because I don't like when people who claim their own conjecture to be true, as though it were reading minds. It is behavior that I'm seeking to eliminate in society.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

It is pretty common in casual conversation to state as fact things you assume to be true based on the existing evidence.

Not for me it isn't.

No one can prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist but it's pretty pointless to get upset with someone for stating it doesn't exist. If you can easily interpret what a person means from they said, and I think it's pretty obvious he did not mean he could read minds, then arguing over his word choice is being didactic sheerly for the sake of being didactic. It should not be considered always necessary to state you are not basing your statement on the existence of super powers; really, you should only have to state that if you actually are basing your statement off of your own super powers, as that is not something readers could readily assume.

If you want to present a counter argument that his assumption is unlikely to be true based on opposing evidence, you could have a relevant point.

It isn't based on factual evidence. He said something that management "believes" as though I must know it to be true. I do not know it to be true and neither does he. Further, his evidence is that "they're trying to trade him" which is ALSO something he doesn't know to be true.

So where is the evidence? There is none.

But saying something isn't factual, when really, almost nothing we discuss is factual (hell, even advanced stats are not 100% accurate due to differing definitions of shot attempts and the difficulty in telling if a shot is going on net, but I never see anyone post those with a margin of error listed), doesn't add to the discussion in a meaningful way.

The purpose is for the purpose to make an actual argument based on the facts, not conjecture. There is no point responded to an argument based on conjecture because it is not an argument at all. This translates well into political discussion as well.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

So when Rex Ryan says, "We have two good quarterbacks on this team," you think that's more accurate than my assumption, which is that Rex Ryan knows his QBs are terrible?

I take that to mean that Rex Ryan believes that he has two QBs that are good. Whether he is correct in that belief is something I would leave to on-field production. I take people at their word for the most part.

You don't have to be a mind-reader to use common sense to draw a conclusion.

No, you don't; but you do have to be a mind-reader to know Edmonton regrets drafting Nail Yakupov (unless you've spoken with the management of the Edmonton Oilers and they've told you so.)

 

[Abe Vukota]

I take that to mean that Rex Ryan believes that he has two QBs that are good. Whether he is correct in that belief is something I would leave to on-field production. I take people at their word for the most part.

If you had ever played organized sports at any level, you'd remember that coaches from pee wee to college talk up their players despite knowing full well how severe their limitations are in many cases. That's what coaches do; they don't tell the truth. So taking them at their word indicates a pretty serious lack of critical thinking skills, since you should know they bend the truth for strategic and managerial purposes on a daily basis.

Rex Ryan isn't an idiot and he knows he has no talent at the position. But watching the games isn't enough to tell you that; Rex needs to hold a press conference about it and explicitly state, "I do not have a good quarterback" for it to be fact? Edmonton leadership needs to do the same? Are all teams happy with their first round picks as long as they don't state otherwise? No, no, and no.

Again, you're arguing that Scott Scissons is a pick the Islanders are happy about simply because no one has told you otherwise. There isn't any point in continuing to show you how silly your stance is; you know at this point, but you're stuck with it.

As far as "this is the behavior I'm trying to eliminate in society" and the other pseudo-Messianic posts about controlling behavior, maybe just post on a message board without a mission to improve all the other posters? Get thine own grammatical and linguistic house in order, then preach, brother.

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

Lots of bickering, thread seems unnecessary.

Closed.