We are so fickle and cowardly

[ChrisNG53]

It works like this:

Case 1.

1. There is a rule.
2. The rule is broken by our team.
3. Our team wins.
4. We are happy and accept that rules are sometimes broken.

Case 2.

1. There is a rule.
2. The rule is broken by another team.
3. Our team loses.
4. We are not happy because the rule was broken.

There is nothing more to it than that....Nothing, zip, zero....

The discussion centres on how we feel about it when rules are broken.

... that out of "convenient" fickleness and/or cowardice we act like sheep .....

[Just Gone]

And I still do not agree. ................ but thank God we are entitled to our own opinions. ........

[adrianh]

@KevinB - What will you do if you lose a huge tender and you find out that the winner outbid you by a R 1000 because your secretary wispered your quote to him one night and she got a nice diamond ring out of the deal.

She thought that that she was just being a teeny weeny bit naughty telling that one number.

Ok, what do you do now?

Do you forgive her and say ag shame man, you just cheated a little bit but it is ok because you got a diamond ring?

You see, it is not the particular circumstance that is important, it is the principle, why does one get to cheat a little bit but not the other....does it come down to degree of cheating or more importantly how the cheating affects us.

[bjsteyn]

Wow is this topic still going, new TFSA record coming up. @Dave A, what is the most pages a topic has reached? Maby here is a new topic to start,
"why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"

[adrianh]

It is not a matter of being argumentative, it is simply open debate. Some of us simply like to thrash ideas around. Do you play chess, its much the same. The problem is that while some see it as a simple chess game others see it as a fight to the death. The trick is to play the game in such a way that your opponent wants to come back for another friendly round.

[Just Gone]

@ adrian - yes it was a debate, but ceases to be a debate when one arrogant member (Chris) makes postings like:

So I will give a VERY SIMPLE example.

or

What exactly do you disagree with? I have made out a very,very simple case --

or

Our conversation is now closed

or

you seem to missing the whole point

- one persons "point" is not neccessary the same as yours .......... therefore YOU might be missing the point according to them !
or

When you have clear facts, indusputable facts, you are in a position to make a judgement call

Now I wonder to myself - you (chris) have been doing EXACTLY that these last 13 pages !!! YOU are not in a position to make a "call", because YOU do not have indusputable facts !! ........ unless of course if you know Cameron personally ........ which I doubt.

It also amazes me that this whole one sided "debate" - the same person (chris) says that "Hansie Cronje did not cheat" - Now once again I wonder how you are in a position to make this "call", because YOU do have indusputable facts ......... especially after he was found guilty ....... by one of your peers by the way !!!! In my eyes cheating in sport is EXACTLY what Hansie did !!! If you take money (on more than one occasion) to change the outcome of anything in sport - it is cheating !

So in this whole "debate" some of us need to remember that this is not a courtroom where you have the last say - it is also not a courtroom where YOU have to make out a "simple case" - this is a debate about someone who is a a member of our community - someone who we are proud of (unlike Hansie) and someone who we want to make us proud. Everyone here has a right to their opinion - it is not up to one person to tell the rest of us here that we are wrong with our opinions , because it is exactly that - our opinions.

[bjsteyn]

It is not a matter of being argumentative, it is simply open debate. Some of us simply like to thrash ideas around. Do you play chess, its much the same. The problem is that while some see it as a simple chess game others see it as a fight to the death. The trick is to play the game in such a way that your opponent wants to come back for another friendly round.

When it comes to chess, the game is so tight that you can't give your opponent a chance to come back. It is what makes the difference between being a social player and a Kasparov. Yes, you might want the other person to think that you are giving him a chance to come back, just so that you can nail him when he does exactly what you wanted him to do. I was in the top 7 in Border chess in primary school :-) after 3 tournaments but missed to many tournaments with rugby to make Border.

As far as arguments/debating go, I am all up for it, but don't like the "attacking" method some people use before thinking it threw in topics.

In chess a strong defensive setup, is also a foundation for a strong attack.

So hold back on your argument, don't just let it all out! Draw your opposing debater in, and if he/she attacks you / your argument, you will be ready for checkmate.

BJ :-)

[vieome]

I guess the game of chess simply sums up this thread with a nice check mate. NEW YORK, May 11 -- In a stunning showdown between man and machine, the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue decisively beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov, the first time a computer has been able to defeat the best human player in a match. Kasparov, in a postgame news conference, accused International Business Machines Corp. of building a machine specifically to defeat him. "It was nothing to do about science. . . . It was zeal to beat Garry Kasparov," he said. "And when a big corporation with unlimited resources would like to do so, there are many ways to achieve the result. And the result was achieved."

[Dave A]

Cop out?

Honestly? I expected a bit more… The argument was engineered. I mean no disrespect but you knew that your case and point was easily defendable. I have seen this strategy before in many conspiracies thus it is hardly new.

It is always masked as the greater good against an infantine evil. However you disarmed every opinion with your "FACTS" knowing that any argument against them would be lost.

Meh. Chris's "cheat" (if there was one) to ensure victory was to limit the scope of introduced context. Probably would have gone a bit smoother if we'd differentiated between verdict and arguments in mitigation/aggravation.

In the broadest context though Chris's argument does pose quite a dilemma.
If you break a rule, you're a cheat. If you blindly follow rules, you're a sheep.
If you blindly accept Chris's argument you're a sheep too, but at least you've got the moral high ground this time.
If you don't accept Chris's argument, he's going to challenge your morality implying you condone cheating.

And so it goes on...

The good news is everyone's been thinking, challenging, and in so doing being challenged themselves.
Therefor I can only conclude most of the folk here are not sheep

I also suggest it's unfair to single out Cameron when it comes to breaking this rule...
(Let's see if we can get another 10 pages going here )

Maby here is a new topic to start, "why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"

So start it already

[gac]

Can't disagree with your views and opinions on the specific instances but to say there is no such thing as the truth cannot be correct nor true of many clear cut situations.

[Blurock]

Maby here is a new topic to start,
"why are we so argumentative by nature and why do we always believe we are right"

I was once told by a lecturer on advanced negotiation skills at Gibbs Business School that South Africans are the worst negotiators in the world. Discussions about the reasons for this perception was inconclusive. Some of the points raised was that our background made us feel inferior and we would give too much away in an attempt to please. The other side of the coin was that we are too stubborn, do not communicate well, do not want to share information and play the man, not the problem.

Although not negotiations, I see a resemblance in the way that we debate. We often take a position and then vigorously and emotionally defend that position without being objective as we do not want to lose face by admitting that we are wrong or that the other guy may have a valid point.

That is also when the name calling starts.

[tec0]

Since we are firing up the boiler eh why not…

In the original argument it was said that taking an extra kick is cheating as the rules are clear on that aspect. Now morally you cannot argue against the rules or can you?

In 1336 it was against the law for men to have more than 2 courses at a meal to safeguard against obesity. This law was laid down by Edward III

Now considering how bad obesity has gotten one can argue that this was actually not such a bad law to begin with. Consider the effects it would have on a modern world today. Yes people will be healthy and fast food restaurants would be half as successful as it is now since you are only allowed to have two meals.

Still the law was changed and latter dismissed because someone felt it was unreasonable at some stage. So the outcome is clear today obesity is a real problem for many of us.

The point however is this; rules must be challenged from time to time so that people can find fair boundaries and so on. As this law have shown us it would have been a good thing if it remained in power. Obesity would have been eradicated but none the less a seemingly good law was abolished for good reasons "At that time"

In this scenario you can see the cause and effect and a bit of history.

Here however we don’t know enough… For example,

We don’t know if the extra kick was allowed in other competitions. If so why? What changed and why? All these questions needs answers before you can go out and scream "cheater". I say this because everything has a beginning so where did the athletes started to use the extra kick and why wasn’t there any action taken at those competitions?

[wynn]

"Cogito ergo sheep" "I think therefore I am (a sheep)

With apologies to Descartes

[vieome]

While words offer a means to meanings, and insults maybe used in lieu of any sound truth, I suppose a picture can say it better.

[Citizen X]

Im sorry but I do not agree with you ................... Hansie did not pretend - he took millions for confirmed match fixing !! ......... It was not only R50 000 as some Hansie fans like to think !

It was because of him and then continuous corruption afterwards and bookies that I have lost total interest in cricket !!!

I'm with Kevin on this one! Our role models, those we look up to, admire and aspire to be, should be beyond reproach. I was a Hansie fan, but after what he did, I could never see him in the same light...