The Popcorn thread: Dust-ups, cat fights and other drama

[ajpmn01]

Break out the popcorn! Fur is flying here beginning around the end of page 2:

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... 1&start=15

[FantasyFreak]

Break out the popcorn! Fur is flying here beginning around the end of page 2:

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... 1&start=15

It is?

[ajpmn01]

Break out the popcorn! Fur is flying here beginning around the end of page 2:

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... 1&start=15

It is?

Sorry, thought it laid the groundwork for the (I thought) somewhat heated discussion on page three about how viewpoints are presented. It cooled down by page four.

[ArrylT]

Break out the popcorn! Fur is flying here beginning around the end of page 2:

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... 1&start=15

It is?

Sorry, thought it laid the groundwork for the (I thought) somewhat heated discussion on page three about how viewpoints are presented. It cooled down by page four.

Where do I send the bill for the wasted popcorn.

[Lumps]

I'm thoroughly disappointed in you guys. I can't believe this gem hasn't been mentioned yet. One where your's truly was involved....

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... =5&t=47676

[Cult of Dionysus]

Getting a little heated on page 54 of the Tyreek Hill thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=181059&start=795

Probably gonna be locked within a few posts.

[dlf_jaronf]

Getting a little heated on page 54 of the Tyreek Hill thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=181059&start=795

Probably gonna be locked within a few posts.

Yep, this was locked. Nothing good is coming out of Tyreek Hill discussions these days.

[Goddard]

Just as I was about to post my last comment on the topic, it gets locked. I'll leave it here and move on...

I'm hoping this will be my last post on this topic until we get some real information, but for now, I just want to make one thing clear. I never said Hill was innocent. My stance all along, and especially now that there's more information, is that it's very possible that he's innocent. It's also very possible that he's guilty, but there are only two people in this world who know the truth. Neither are on these forums. My issue with some of the things being said is that there are lots of people saying Hill is guilty, should be banned from the NFL, should spend the rest of his life in prison...without any proof. So why is it ok for them to make those comments and then get upset and hypocritical if someone else insinuates that it's possible he's not guilty? Bashing someone because they disagree with you or point out some of the flaws in an argument seems counterproductive. People get mad at Hill supporters and say that they're being overly presumptuous, when they're doing the same thing in return and judging someone based on a he said she said incident (at least for now, that's what it is).

It also really bothers me when people make comments like, "well you must be a Hill owner, that's why you think/want him to be innocent." That's almost as bad as if I were to say you, well you don't own Hill, so you must want him to be guilty so you don't have to face him in the playoffs. Or comments like, "you're not a lawyer so stop pretending like you know how the legal system works." Then said person goes and tries to explain the law to others.

Like I said at the beginning of this post. I'm going to try to refrain from commenting on this again and hope we got some information from the NFL soon. Then we can get back to arguing over what Hill's dynasty value is.

No need for anyone to respond please.

[hockeyBjj]

I log in this morning, and see the popcorn thread bumped and the Tyreek Hill thread locked

I've got some entertaining reading to do apparently

[ArrylT]

It also really bothers me when people make comments like, "well you must be a Hill owner, that's why you think/want him to be innocent."

That is one thing I have never really understood. And I am not talking about Hill specifically. I do not get why people post things like that in any kind of argument/debate/discussion. If you disagree with another posters pov - that is perfectly fine. However what does their ownership share of any player have to do with it?

The only answer I can come up with is that it is in human nature to be very difficult to change our minds (part of our hardwired need for survival). Because of this, even when presented with logical points from a different perspective, we find it too hard, at times, to admit that those points could be valid, and the easiest response is to discredit the other person even though we know deep down their argument has merit.

I would say that this is as close to an "acceptable" ad hominem* argument as we can find. What I mean by that is that it is done so frequently on all internet fantasy sports forums (not just DLF) that it is impossible to stop, even if moderators on forums wanted/could attempt to moderate that.


* - for anyone not aware - ad hominem arguments attack the other persons credibility without addressing the actual substance of the argument.

[hockeyBjj]

Might want to make a run to the store for some fresh popcorn. I'm sure there'll be a use for it soon

0 suspension for Tyreek Hill

[cazzie33]

Might want to make a run to the store for some fresh popcorn. I'm sure there'll be a use for it soon

0 suspension for Tyreek Hill

Make mine "extra salty"

[dynastyninja]

It also really bothers me when people make comments like, "well you must be a Hill owner, that's why you think/want him to be innocent."

That is one thing I have never really understood. And I am not talking about Hill specifically. I do not get why people post things like that in any kind of argument/debate/discussion. If you disagree with another posters pov - that is perfectly fine. However what does their ownership share of any player have to do with it?

The only answer I can come up with is that it is in human nature to be very difficult to change our minds (part of our hardwired need for survival). Because of this, even when presented with logical points from a different perspective, we find it too hard, at times, to admit that those points could be valid, and the easiest response is to discredit the other person even though we know deep down their argument has merit.

I would say that this is as close to an "acceptable" ad hominem* argument as we can find. What I mean by that is that it is done so frequently on all internet fantasy sports forums (not just DLF) that it is impossible to stop, even if moderators on forums wanted/could attempt to moderate that.


* - for anyone not aware - ad hominem arguments attack the other persons credibility without addressing the actual substance of the argument.

I think whether or not someone owns a player is very important when they are discussing them. There is a definite bias in general towards owned players vs. non-owned players.

[ArrylT]

It also really bothers me when people make comments like, "well you must be a Hill owner, that's why you think/want him to be innocent."

That is one thing I have never really understood. And I am not talking about Hill specifically. I do not get why people post things like that in any kind of argument/debate/discussion. If you disagree with another posters pov - that is perfectly fine. However what does their ownership share of any player have to do with it?

The only answer I can come up with is that it is in human nature to be very difficult to change our minds (part of our hardwired need for survival). Because of this, even when presented with logical points from a different perspective, we find it too hard, at times, to admit that those points could be valid, and the easiest response is to discredit the other person even though we know deep down their argument has merit.

I would say that this is as close to an "acceptable" ad hominem* argument as we can find. What I mean by that is that it is done so frequently on all internet fantasy sports forums (not just DLF) that it is impossible to stop, even if moderators on forums wanted/could attempt to moderate that.


* - for anyone not aware - ad hominem arguments attack the other persons credibility without addressing the actual substance of the argument.

I think whether or not someone owns a player is very important when they are discussing them. There is a definite bias in general towards owned players vs. non-owned players.

That could work both ways though - it could be argued that lack of ownership shows a bias as well. It does seem obvious that owners that believe in players will focus their efforts on owning said players, and owners that do not believe in said players, will focus on avoiding owning. However there is no proven evidence that this is fact only hearsay.

The point is not about whether or not an owner owns a player or not - the point is that discrediting their opinion based solely on ownership (or lack thereof) of that player is an ad hominem type argument.

Further without actual research, your basing your belief off of anecdotal evidence. In other words it is something that many people believe is true, just because they note times when something matched their bias. We dont pay attention to the times owners who own players make cases against them, only when we see something that proves our unfounded belief.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Kmani6 is frothing at the mouth to the point that he went looking through my old threads and tried to use a post where I criticized Riley Ridley as evidence that I’m a “hater” of Calvin Ridley. So... that’s fun.