On no...poor LeBron

I got the impression that people were evaluating LeBron James, based on what he has done and said quite fine. My beef is this- why should that matter at all? We, or at least I am, are basketball fans, and this does nothing to the game, which is why i keep on beating the dead horse named "inapropos." All this based on second hand information, and an inference of the quoted source's own creation. Charles Barkley tossing people through windows and spitting on girls had nothing to do with his game, except affect a few potential endorsement deals.

I could care less whether they meant it or not. The snappish and petulant rush to judgment could be tempered with a dose of realism - that character matters very little in the game. The need to idolize sports heros lead to ridiculous demands, like those moral standards, and the expectation that everyone should exhibit certain type of behavior. He's just a basketball player, not Gandhi. As a basketball fan, the only thing i admire is skill. If i am worried about whether they are going to be humble and meek, inoffensive as possible, then i'm not being a basketball fan, but something else entirely.

The ability to participate, play well, win games, lead his team to the promised land.

LeBron's personality is incidental, extemporaneous. If he's a boorish thug like Malone that wins MVP's, or otherwise a stoic like Tim Duncan, it doesn't make a difference. The player's personality will dictate his popularity - nothing more. His skills will be the only thing that really matters.

I disagree, because the justification relies solely on the person's beliefs. That's another issue and the adoption of a moral standard is entirely up to one's own affirmation. What counts as morally proper behavior is in the eye of the observer.

That should be why i am telling everyone to leave LeBron alone and let him dictate himself on the court. Once we take this off the court and inspect his life, judge whatever limited information we are privvy to, we're no longer basketball fans, but disappointed members of a religious cult.

~Heretic~

 

I was going to quote each section and respond accordingly until I read the last line. That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Anybody who forms an opinion of a person based on less than complete knowledge of that person's exploits is not in a freaking religious cult, it means they are judgemental, and maybe more than a tad hasty.

Your position is pretty clear. You are a basketball fan, and you dont' seem to care if a player is a rapist or a philanthropist outside of the basketball court. Fine. That's your right. But some people aren't content with those criteria to judge a person. Being a basketball fan doesn't mean you only judge a player based on the on court activities. It means you enjoy basketball. A person can form their own opinions of a basketball player on however much information they see fit.

If your beef is that people are forming opinions of Lebron James based on this article, which has no direct quotes and could be total bull****, then just out and out say that. However, I think it is quite obvious that there is more than this article at work in creating everyone's dislike of James.

Getting on people because they are forming an opinion of a person based on something other than basketball seems a bit overbearing to me. Not everyone is going to ignore off court behavior, and I don't think you make a very good argument to do so.

So you are asking everyone to abandon their own personal moral standards of judging people because you don't like that it is decided individually? That's ridiculous. Just because he is a basketball player doesn't mean Lebron James is above criticism for anything he does off the court. It sounds like you want to give him a free pass just because everyone might not have the same moral standard. I don't give people free passes because they are basketball players. If a basketball player does or says something I don't like, then that becomes part of why I don't like that player.

These are humans, not robots playing basketball.

But I don't imagine I am going to change your mind about any of this, and I can almost guarantee you that you won't change the mind of any of the people in this thread that already thought James is overly arrogant. So I'm going to step out of this conversation. It seems I barked up the wrong Fichte and wasted my time.

 

Yeah i went for a Mencken-esque swipe at organized religion.

That's not much of a counter argument - the criteria to judge a person is not an all-inclusive, holistic idea, and if we start from the position of a basketball fan then we've got problems.

I've done so 2 or 3 times already, to no avail.

I too am dismayed at the hype machine, because it establishes impossible standards, Hall of fame ones, and Lebron is doomed to fail them. I sure hope he doesn't, but the bar has been raised far beyond realistic expectations. This vicious cycle will continue to speed up faster and faster, and soon, somebody will be knighted as the next wilt chamberlain in elementary school.

I can always improve it, but you haven't presented a good one in return. My argument is this - a person who judges another for something non-basketball related is not being a basketball fan. For example, i was praising Kidd's talents last year, arguing that he should be the MVP, and a friend of mine declared Jason Kidd to be an idiot. I asked him why, and he said because he slapped his wife. I asked him if that act was enough to condemn him. He said yes, because he would never do that. I told him even if he (my friend) slapped his wife i would not be so quick to judge him, having the benefit of knowing him beyond press clippings. He continued to decry Jason Kidd's inferior character to the point of moral righteousness. I told him that what Jason Kidd does off the court has nothing to do with what he did on the court, but that was lost upon the moral avenger. This situation is the same.

You for real? That doesn't even sniff the hotdogs outside the ballpark of what i wrote. I was trying to argue that people are biased when it comes to morality, not that they should give it up because of what i think. And that bias is their prejudices cannot transcend their perspective. That's about it. Nothing about whether i like how it is decided.

I agree, and wonder where the hell you got this from. I do despise players who are rotten to the core, like Derrick Coleman. But if we're talking about his skills, then talking about his personality or inability to be cuddly or play nice with people, is a failure to address the real issue, and is poisoning the well.

Nor am i in the market of giving free passes - but showing where the distinction should be made- between a basketball player and the prospective best friend. I like a ball player because of several reasons, and most of them are usually because he produces, and i want to identify with that player. Well, thinking about this at length, you could argue from psychological reasons...

Changing the minds of people was never on my menu - just the fact that my voice is heard is enough. People are free to draw their conclusions, think about what has been said, what they already believe, and that alone is more than enough.

Why do you think you wasted your time? Were you trying to change my mind?

~Radical subjectivity~

 

Oh Jumping Jesus H. Christ.

You're making this far too easy. Were you drunk or under the influence of hallucinogens when you posted? If not may i suggest a critical thinking class at the local Juco?

Fallacious argument number one. Ad hominems may score cheap points with the peanut gallery, but they're still bad arguments. Next.

You exaggerate. Can you say Tempest in a tea-cup? The inference that his ego is out of control based on several self-promoting attire is thoroughly weak. Try and justifying it instead of asserting it, then maybe you would have a point. If his team is 12-0, feasting upon the top schools in the land, and he still averages healthy stats, then he must be doing something good. Whatever he wears that draws attention to himself is spurrious and at best incidental. If he was a locker cancer there should be far more evidence for you to present. Alas, you have none. So, that's bad argument number two, due to an embarrasing lack of evidence. Next.

Your continual mischaracterization is flawed. Try justifying it before making leaps of illogic and pretending otherwise. Next.

Backed in a corner so soon? A couple of champions have already scored over 70 points in a game. Now you're asking whether a title could be won that way? Methinks yer moving the goalpost in order to save face. A guy who goes off big time does not necessarily means he will not win the title. Before Jordan came along, it was unheard of a scoring champion ever winning the title. Next.

You might want to check your obvious jealousy at the door. LeBron is a class act, as evidenced his concern for Lucas' misfortune. If Sports Illustrated told him that he was the chosen one, who is he to disagree? If he isn't the chosen one, as if there were better prospects elsewhere, then that would be questionable. Alas, there's nobody else, not even at the college ranks. At best you have ESPN guys reaching for straws on an obscure guy from Europe. Next.

Anthony Mason is Anthony mason, not the ideal representative of all future locker cancers, be that LeBron James, nor is he the reason his team suck. If that was the case, that Anthony Mason was inherently a cancer, the Knicks would never have had any success, nor would the Miami Heat. It was Mason's inability to blend his talents with the Buck's offensive system, not his locker room presence. Anthony Mason has specific skills, specific role, specific issues, and therefore cannot be the generic standard for all problematic players who may not share his specific facts. Next.

By the way, in the NFL cast-offs who were turned out by other teams were rehabilitated by the Raiders, who made a living out of recycling those supposedly 'used-up' or 'troubling' players. There are many parallels in the NBA history and i don't have to bother recite them. That should serve as a reason not to reject people based on media inspired hype or limited fan perception.

It is without surprise you have avoided the most important point- that the quote in the OP of this thread has been shamefully misconstrued to great lengths, and serves as nothing more than self-justified moral righteousness. Get off that high horse and look closer! Who is doing the saying, and what is being said should be enough.

Why don't you address my point-by-point deconstruction of your nonsense, instead of standing over there and take potshots that only exposes your ignorance? Start with my previous post, and I'll give you another college try at it.

~Heretic~

 

Hey Fichte, guess what?

Even after all your ridiculously long posts, whether you made a valid point or not, I STILL hate Lebron!

And by the way, it has nothing to do with the original subject of this thread, which I don't even believe is true.

 

I don't hate Lebron. He's good...maybe because he is taller and bigger than everyone else. He will be at least an OK player.

 

Can't argue with that.

Would it be a bad idea for the Cavs to trade LeBron, if they get the first pick, or at least trade the first pick for a bunch of proven veterans to upgrade their team's potential? They have plenty of younglings, why add another?

~Heretic~

 

That's my thinking. They have a lot of pretty good, young players already. If they could land a guy like Garnett for the Lebron pick, I think it would be in their best interest. Garnett might be a bit much, but I could see them getting someone of his caliber for that pick (assuming they get it).

 

Imagine the backlash if that ever happened. McHale would be the triggerman, wouldn't he? Maybe a package of veterans would be more effective (or at least realistic).

I'm beginning to think LeBron won't even be anything but a overwhelmed rookie in his first year; given that the only rookies who made the successful jump from high school were big men (Moses Malone, and now, Armare, if he keeps this up) who could get away with quickness and athleticism at the forward or center spots.

A slasher (Lebron doesn't have a solid perimeter game, as evidenced the espn broadcast) will have a more difficult time adjusting to the size and speed difference than the bigs.

~Heretic~

 

Oh, really? FWIW, a couple of professors disagree with you. Am i to take your word over theirs? Nah.

If the shoe fits, bucko...

Wow, a 15 year old in college... will wonders never cease?

When you feel like backing up anything you said, and gain the balls to address my points directly, let me know. Otherwise, STFU and grow a few brain cells.

~Heretic~

 

Lebron certainly would be a hometown hero...

But then again, there are many teams who'd give up just about anything for him...

It really depends on what's being offered. If Garnett was, like Raven said, I think it's a no brainer...

 

Lebron will have Amare Stoudemire to thank for a good deal of the backlash he will receive if he isn't successful. Now that it is obviously possible for a HS player to play great in his first year, people will be expecting it from James. Most will probably point to Amare when the "It's his first season out of high school" excuse is thrown out there. People will likely fail to realize that the two situations are entirely different.

 

Last Wordism: "Gettin' the last word in is for fools who think they have not said enough."

Do continue shoving your foot further down your esophagus - much to the amusement of all.

~Heretic~