Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:14 pm
For your submission to hold any water, I would suggest that you exercise care and provide some form or supporting evidence.
The many reasons to believe have been posted many times in this forum.
Ah, so this is our methodology for presenting supportive evidence. Well then, the many reasons to believe you do not “avoid extremes of boldness” have also been posted many times in this forum. With that level of evidence being the standard, it would appear that neither of us is a “reasonable person”. Sadly, that does not equate to JB being a Genius nor the alternative.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:14 pm
That being said, whether or not I am a reasonable person is immaterial as to whether my argument is valid, unless of course you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments.
Whether or not you are reasonable in this matter has
everything to do with this.
See, you were trying to set yourself up as some kind of impartial judge of reasonableness.
Contrary to your misunderstanding, my argument is that a “reasonable person” would require more evidence than what has been presented thus far in order to agree that JB is, in fact, a Genius.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
BTW if it is an “ad hominem argument” to question an opponent’s reasonableness in a debate
… then I must point out those four fingers of yours pointing directly back at yourself sir.
YOU are the one who started us down this road with "A reasonable person would believe..."
My argument is that that a “reasonable person” would require more evidence than what has been presented thus far in order to agree that JB is, in fact, a Genius. Hence, the mirror image of my argument is that a person who, based on the evidence presented thus far, proclaims JB to be a Genius is an “unreasonable person” (in this matter). I can’t help it if, by default, that makes you an “unreasonable person” (in this matter). Now if I were to say, “you are an unreasonable person and therefore your argument is wrong”, that would be an ad hominem (and invalid) argument.
Your being an “unreasonable person” (or not) doesn’t make your arguments wrong or right. Evidence is what makes your arguments right or wrong. And as noted above, our current standard of evidence (i.e. “many reasons to believe have been posted many times in this forum “) would seem to allow for both sides to be right and wrong at the same time.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:14 pm
The supporting evidence you provide (i.e. providing nebulous predictions) to uphold the statement that you are "avoiding extremes of boldness" is relevant but easily countered by your insistence on proclaiming JB a "Genius" without showing evidence that he is above (or even equal to) the level of the average NHL GM. I would submit that such proclamation is indeed evidence taking an "extreme of boldness".
So you agree that my predictions are reasonable. Good.
Nope. Being relevant is one thing. Saying they are reasonable is quite another.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
But moving on…
The “evidence” of Lord Benning’s genius has been posted many times in this forum.
This evidence makes my conclusion reasonable.
Just as the evidence against such premise has also “been posted many times in this forum”. It appears that with such a low standard of evidence, we shall not make any headway in this argument. Perhaps instead, we should try to find some common ground as to what we each believe a “reasonable person” would require to proclaim JB a Genius?
Dispensing with our standard of evidence for the moment, would you agree that for a “reasonable person” to proclaim JB a Genius, such “reasonable person” would need to see evidence indicating that JB was doing a significantly better job than an average NHL GM?
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Meanwhile we have already established that YOU are
unreasonable in this matter...
(you refuse to put any faith in the rebuild, you are "not avoiding extremes of carefulness")
So it... A P P E A R S... that reasonable people believe that Lord Benning is a genius.
Only established, if our flimsy standard of evidence remains. Or perhaps I should just argue that evidence of my own reasonableness in this matter has “been posted many times in this forum”.
With respect to your argument that I “refuse to put any faith in the rebuild”, I have actually been on record quite a few times in stating that I am a fan of JB’s work from last year’s trade deadline coming forward and with a fair amount of his other drafting. My criticism of other portions of his tenure does not equate to having no faith in the rebuild, it just means I don’t interpret JB’s overall tenure as being evidence of a “Genius”.
Please ensure you are in an upright seated position for this……………… but I would actually be okay (and would even prefer) extending JB’s contract given (what I consider to be) improvement as evidenced by his body of work over the past year, subject to the extension’s terms of course.
