Poll: 12 hours too old to play

[Oskamunda]

It can't be unfair AND just. "Just" doesn't work that way.

Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. Fair requires emotional context, while just requires that very same emotional context to be unpresent.

Just and Fair are not necessarily congruent. Is it just for a man to be shot for stealing a horse? No. Is it fair? Yes [or at least, it was 100 years ago, when horses dictated one's ability to SURVIVE]. Is it fair for a man, having committed involuntary vehicular manslaughter, to be incarcerated for any where from 2-30 YEARS [depending on your state] with hardened criminals, where he will be transformed by violence and rape INTO a hardened criminal, rather than letting his conscience do the work for him? No. Is it just? Yes [you see, the quality of the prison conditions and his own personal stature should not dictate the degree of his punishment, excepting him from well-laid laws].

Fair and Just can overlap, but neither needs the other to be.

Wait, wait, I see it now: But we're talking Football, Basketball, and Baseball! Not murder or horse theft! No, we're not talking about Avunculicide, either. It's an illustration to point out that justice and fairness are not concomitant 100% of the time.

What one should do when a logical fallacy, like this one, presents itself: examine it and identify the marks of its untruth. It cannot be unfair and just because I state that it cannot be unfair and just, regardless of ANY stated evidence for or against the argument at hand, which I will not present...a little Ad Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc there. Followed by an angry rant, as well.

Must be a conservative...you know, make a pithy and unproven statement, express anger, distract with a smokebomb, unsubtly change the subject, and have people who are less intelligent than you agree with your final and unrelated conclusion due to emotional rally hypnosis without having to have provided one shred of evidence to support the validity of your claims. Now before I get warned or complained against, I'm not saying anything negative, I'm observing a phenomenon. I'm not particularly fond of liberals, either, what with their limp wrists, easily bruised egos, and certitude that the other side is definitely evil AND out to kill us all.

Those might not be fair things to say...but they are just.

 

[TaboriHK]

It can't be unfair AND just. "Just" doesn't work that way.

Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. Fair requires emotional context, while just requires that very same emotional context to be unpresent.

Just and Fair are not necessarily congruent. Is it just for a man to be shot for stealing a horse? No. Is it fair? Yes [or at least, it was 100 years ago, when horses dictated one's ability to SURVIVE]. Is it fair for a man, having committed involuntary vehicular manslaughter, to be incarcerated for any where from 2-30 YEARS [depending on your state] with hardened criminals, where he will be transformed by violence and rape INTO a hardened criminal, rather than letting his conscience do the work for him? No. Is it just? Yes [you see, the quality of the prison conditions and his own personal stature should not dictate the degree of his punishment, excepting him from well-laid laws].

Fair and Just can overlap, but neither needs the other to be.

Wait, wait, I see it now: But we're talking Football, Basketball, and Baseball! Not murder or horse theft! No, we're not talking about Avunculicide, either. It's an illustration to point out that justice and fairness are not concomitant 100% of the time.

What one should do when a logical fallacy, like this one, presents itself: examine it and identify the marks of its untruth. It cannot be unfair and just because I state that it cannot be unfair and just, regardless of ANY stated evidence for or against the argument at hand, which I will not present...a little Ad Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc there. Followed by an angry rant, as well.

Must be a conservative...you know, make a pithy and unproven statement, express anger, distract with a smokebomb, unsubtly change the subject, and have people who are less intelligent than you agree with your final and unrelated conclusion due to emotional rally hypnosis without having to have provided one shred of evidence to support the validity of your claims. Now before I get warned or complained against, I'm not saying anything negative, I'm observing a phenomenon. I'm not particularly fond of liberals, either, what with their limp wrists, easily bruised egos, and certitude that the other side is definitely evil AND out to kill us all.

Those might not be fair things to say...but they are just.

Sorry, but you just put a lot more energy into this subject then I care to. For me personally, fair and just are the same thing 9 times out of 10. This would be one of those times. One could argue that the giant 11 year old on Yahoo right now playing basketball should be disqualified because he grew unfairly early. Both are unfair and arbitrary distinctions.

 

[Oskamunda]

Sorry, but you just put a lot more energy into this subject then I care to. For me personally, fair and just are the same thing 9 times out of 10. This would be one of those times. One could argue that the giant 11 year old on Yahoo right now playing basketball should be disqualified because he grew unfairly early. Both are unfair and arbitrary distinctions.

The taller person has a better chance? Fair AND Just, but also totally inaccurate.

Terrell Brandon - 5'11" Cavaliers and Bucks
Damon "Mighty Mouse" Stoudamire - 5'10" [95 and 96 RotY award] Grizzlies, Trail Blazers, Spurs
Avery "Little General" Johnson - 5'10" Nuggets, Rockets, Mavericks, Spurs
Michael Adams - 5'10" Nuggets, Hornets [known for his "push-shot"]
Calvin Murphy - 5'9" Rockets [1993 Hall-of-Famer]
Nate Robinson - 5'9" Knicks [and dunk-contest winner in 2006 after jumping OVER Spud Webb]
Wataru "Kilo Wat" Misaka - 5'7" Knicks [also first non-Caucasian player in NBA]
Anthony "Spud" Webb - 5'7" Pistons, Kings, Magic [highest jump in NBA at 42"]
Earl Boykins - 5'5" Nuggets, Clippers, Bucks, Wizards
Tyrone "Muggsy" Bogues - 5'3" Hornets [10-year vet, never traded]

The reason these people get extra notice is that they work harder than those to whom it is just given, whether through age or physical build. THAT is also Fair and Just.

BTW, thanks for proving my point.

You put more work in than I care to [pithy or unproven statement].
For me personally..."conclusion" [replace anger statement with another pithy or unproven statement].
...giant 11 year-old...[smoke-bomb AND unsubtle change of subject]
Both are unfair and arbitrary distinctions [final unrelated conclusion].

Also, your 9-times-out-of-10 is a common logical fallacy which goes by the name of "Appeal to Common Practice," and first half of that argument, for-me-personally is a common logical fallacy that goes by the name of "Biased Sample," AND "Description of Relativist Fallacy."

And lastly, way to go for withdrawing from an intellectual debate when you start to lose ground by implying the other side's process is undue or unnecessary in comparing your more moderate personal habits in juxtaposition [Appeal to Spite] before getting in one last ridiculous stab in hoping no one will notice enough to disprove your obviously inaccurate statement.

THE KID CAN'T PLAY, HE'S TOO OLD BY A LARGE MARGIN, AND THE RULES REGULATING HIS PLAY ARE PLACED THERE FOR PROTECTION OF PLAYERS AND INTEGRITY OF THE SPORT FOR THE EXACT REASONS SUPPORTERS DENY.

It's really very simple.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Bah, he should be allowed to play. Not like he could help that. =|

 

[TaboriHK]

Sorry, but you just put a lot more energy into this subject then I care to. For me personally, fair and just are the same thing 9 times out of 10. This would be one of those times. One could argue that the giant 11 year old on Yahoo right now playing basketball should be disqualified because he grew unfairly early. Both are unfair and arbitrary distinctions.

The taller person has a better chance? Fair AND Just, but also totally inaccurate.

Terrell Brandon - 5'11" Cavaliers and Bucks
Damon "Mighty Mouse" Stoudamire - 5'10" [95 and 96 RotY award] Grizzlies, Trail Blazers, Spurs
Avery "Little General" Johnson - 5'10" Nuggets, Rockets, Mavericks, Spurs
Michael Adams - 5'10" Nuggets, Hornets [known for his "push-shot"]
Calvin Murphy - 5'9" Rockets [1993 Hall-of-Famer]
Nate Robinson - 5'9" Knicks [and dunk-contest winner in 2006 after jumping OVER Spud Webb]
Wataru "Kilo Wat" Misaka - 5'7" Knicks [also first non-Caucasian player in NBA]
Anthony "Spud" Webb - 5'7" Pistons, Kings, Magic [highest jump in NBA at 42"]
Earl Boykins - 5'5" Nuggets, Clippers, Bucks, Wizards
Tyrone "Muggsy" Bogues - 5'3" Hornets [10-year vet, never traded]

No one on your list is 11 years old. Pointing them out was worthless in the context of this discussion.

 

[Oskamunda]

No one on your list is 11 years old. Pointing them out was worthless in the context of this discussion.

Neither is Sisson 11 years old, nor is he of abnormal physical stature which would give him an unfair advantage other than his age. Pointing out an 11 year old giant was originally worthless in the context of this discussion. My discounting your inaccurate comparison on its own logical merit is irrelevant to its own pertinence in the debate...your example was both incorrect and extraneous.

Also, using aggressive diction to describe my assertion as worthless implies other assertions of mine are worthless, which by association implies that I am worthless, which further implies that all of my assertions are worthless. You may not realize it, but this is an actual debate tactic, and is another logical fallacy, known as "Appeal to Ridicule."

The arguments you have used to prove your case hold no water, as they are not based on fact, expert testimony, analysis of consequence, or--in fact--anything other than personal opinion; your techniques in person-to-person debate are at once transparent, inflammatory, and ultimately ineffectual against someone well-versed in their exercise and implementation.

I do not understand why people are not grasping this conclusion: The kid is too old [by almost a year, not 12 hours] to play in High School sports. High School sports are NOT innocent and pure, and are rife with all varieties of corruption due to their monetary clout, which is WHY these kinds of rules exist. If he wanted to triple-play in senior year, his parents should have researched the consequences of forcing him to unnecessarily repeat the third grade. Maybe unfair, but just. Oh, right, I remember why they don't grasp it; they refuse to avail themselves of the font of knowledge that are books, testimony, and historical documentation.

I am done spinning my wheels here, and I would be very impressed, indeed, if you can manage to put your ego in check and not come back with some impotent quip intended to illustrate to the forum of those you don't consider your peers that you are better and smarter and should be respected. But for my money, I'm willing to bet that you'll find it impossible to not have the last word, even if you have to wait a couple pages to idly jab at someone else.

THE KID CAN'T PLAY.

 

[Adam Galli]

Its BS because he was held back for a learning disability. Doesn't that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

 

[etherlance]

As a former HS football player I would have been DEVASTATED if this happened to me.

You dont get another chance to play your senior year of HS football ever again.

We are talking 12 hours here people. Not 12 days or 12 weeks but 12 freaking hours. Exceptions can and should be made sometimes and this is one where an exception should have been made.

For those of you who argue that it is just a game and no big deal remember that argument works both ways.

Also 12 hours isnt going to give the kid an unfair advantage. Not like 12 hours is going to turn that kid into this....

WTF THAT THINGS NOT NATURAL!!

 

[TOGSolid]

Any exception means a rule can be bent. If they do it once then they've established a precedent. Life sucks, deal with it.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Spirit of the law is whats important. Following shit to the exact letter just to be anal is a real dick move.
Let the kid play. Its obviously very important to him.

This. You follow what the law or rule was intended to prevent, which was older people playing that would have a significant advantage. 12 hours doesn't constitute a significant advantage.

Just because you don't agree with the rules, or the rules don't make sense, doesn't mean that you don't have to follow them.

They need to change the rules, that is for sure, but while they are in place they need to follow them. If they start breaking the rules for things like this then, honestly, where does it stop. Should a student be allowed to pass a class even though they are a few points away from a passing grade? No they shouldn't and this is the same basic idea, except football is just a silly game.

The problem is, it's this kind of attitude that has resulted in pure insanity, such as the many examples here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)#Media_attention

And these are not the only examples, there are many much more commonplace ones such as students getting fined for being too late for class, and there are many students who have been disproportionately punished for minor drug violations, and many times, because of these blind rules, get suspended or punished far too harshly, oftentimes harming their education through suspensions, denial of college loans, ect.

Laws and rules cannot be flexible, and you can't predict the many exceptions and variables that can result in flawed enforcement, there's just too many. When they made this law, they probably weren't thinking of situations like this, and that's understandable, because there were probably many others issues this rule had to address.

So, in short, use your head when enforcing rules, don't let the rules think for you.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

This reminds me of a thread earlier this week. Where a guy got his license taken away because he was 3 minutes to late after a cop followed him all the way home just to arrest him for 3 minutes.

Honestly 12 hours to late? Let the kid play its ridiculous you wouldnt accept him because he was 12 hours too old.

 

[Oskamunda]

Its BS because he was held back for a learning disability. Doesn't that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Folks need to read the articles and watch the posted vid. His parents voluntarily held him back against the school counselor's advice.

 

[TaboriHK]

No one on your list is 11 years old. Pointing them out was worthless in the context of this discussion.

Neither is Sisson 11 years old, nor is he of abnormal physical stature which would give him an unfair advantage other than his age. Pointing out an 11 year old giant was originally worthless in the context of this discussion. My discounting your inaccurate comparison on its own logical merit is irrelevant to its own pertinence in the debate...your example was both incorrect and extraneous.

Also, using aggressive diction to describe my assertion as worthless implies other assertions of mine are worthless, which by association implies that I am worthless, which further implies that all of my assertions are worthless. You may not realize it, but this is an actual debate tactic, and is another logical fallacy, known as "Appeal to Ridicule."

The arguments you have used to prove your case hold no water, as they are not based on fact, expert testimony, analysis of consequence, or--in fact--anything other than personal opinion; your techniques in person-to-person debate are at once transparent, inflammatory, and ultimately ineffectual against someone well-versed in their exercise and implementation.

I do not understand why people are not grasping this conclusion: The kid is too old [by almost a year, not 12 hours] to play in High School sports. High School sports are NOT innocent and pure, and are rife with all varieties of corruption due to their monetary clout, which is WHY these kinds of rules exist. If he wanted to triple-play in senior year, his parents should have researched the consequences of forcing him to unnecessarily repeat the third grade. Maybe unfair, but just. Oh, right, I remember why they don't grasp it; they refuse to avail themselves of the font of knowledge that are books, testimony, and historical documentation.

I am done spinning my wheels here, and I would be very impressed, indeed, if you can manage to put your ego in check and not come back with some impotent quip intended to illustrate to the forum of those you don't consider your peers that you are better and smarter and should be respected. But for my money, I'm willing to bet that you'll find it impossible to not have the last word, even if you have to wait a couple pages to idly jab at someone else.

THE KID CAN'T PLAY.

The comparison is apt. The 11 year old has a technical advantage, comparable to the kid who is "12 hours too old." One can play, one can't. The so called advantage is not different, but because of a slight discrepancy in the rules, one can play the game and one is refused. Making this argument about how you think I feel about you personally (nothing) or what I think about your argument (meandering) is not relevant. My opinion remains unchanged.

 

[Jumping_Over_Fences]

Just because you don't agree with the rules, or the rules don't make sense, doesn't mean that you don't have to follow them.

They need to change the rules, that is for sure, but while they are in place they need to follow them. If they start breaking the rules for things like this then, honestly, where does it stop. Should a student be allowed to pass a class even though they are a few points away from a passing grade? No they shouldn't and this is the same basic idea, except football is just a silly game.

The problem is, it's this kind of attitude that has resulted in pure insanity, such as the many examples here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)#Media_attention

And these are not the only examples, there are many much more commonplace ones such as students getting fined for being too late for class, and there are many students who have been disproportionately punished for minor drug violations, and many times, because of these blind rules, get suspended or punished far too harshly, oftentimes harming their education through suspensions, denial of college loans, ect.

Laws and rules cannot be flexible, and you can't predict the many exceptions and variables that can result in flawed enforcement, there's just too many. When they made this law, they probably weren't thinking of situations like this, and that's understandable, because there were probably many others issues this rule had to address.

So, in short, use your head when enforcing rules, don't let the rules think for you.

I actually went to school in the Christina School District. I find it funny that the seemingly random example you used hits so close to home. However, I don't agree that a rule telling a kid that he is too old and using a knife to cut cake are the same thing, but that's just me.

 

[manaman]

That's a minor technicality. I'm sure no one would mind if the kid played. It would be understandable if a 21 year old wanted to play for them, but 12 hours isn't gonna give him any unfair advantage.

Still you have to have a cutoff at some point. You don't expect a kid to get any slack for driving without a license because he is 12 hours to young to get one. It's only because this is seen as having no consequences by people that they are so outraged the school won't let him play. It's unfair to the other players on his team. Not only do collages find these rules important, but other schools might refuse to play this team for not following the rules agreed upon.

There is also the flip side, what happens next time when you run into a kid that is a week from the cut off, do you allow him? You allowed the other kid that was half a day away. Do you raise a stink when another school allows a kid that is a month from the cut off later on?

 

[manaman]

WTF THAT THINGS NOT NATURAL!!

Well looky at you. You an spot a fake photo. Except I am getting the impression you where judging it as unnatural on the merits of it being real... Ah well, still it is part of a very very old series of fake photographs that show impossibly large body builders, all of them basically having the bodies of real bodybuilders blown up and out of proportion.

Its BS because he was held back for a learning disability. Doesn't that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Folks need to read the articles and watch the posted vid. His parents voluntarily held him back against the school counselor's advice.

I caught that as well, in the article through they make a point of saying he was held back because of his disability, not that it was a voluntary decision on his parents part.

 

[FollowUp]

One one hand, it's cruel to have a kid miss his senior year's season because of twelve hours, but on the other hand the way they describe it seems like he was putting a little too much weight on this year specifically.

 

[C-45]

THE KID CAN'T PLAY, HE'S TOO OLD BY A LARGE MARGIN, AND THE RULES REGULATING HIS PLAY ARE PLACED THERE FOR PROTECTION OF PLAYERS AND INTEGRITY OF THE SPORT FOR THE EXACT REASONS SUPPORTERS DENY.

It's really very simple.

That it is, I mean what is the point of these rules if we're not going to abide by them.

 

[Olrod]

He wasn't only just 12 hours too old, but 1 year and 12 hours.

While he may have been in the same school grade as his classmates, he was a year older than everyone else because he'd been held back a year as well. Or rather, almost 1 year older then the second-oldest in his year and almost 2 years older than the youngest in his year.

 

[Oskamunda]

Its BS because he was held back for a learning disability. Doesn't that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Folks need to read the articles and watch the posted vid. His parents voluntarily held him back against the school counselor's advice.

I caught that as well, in the article through they make a point of saying he was held back because of his disability, not that it was a voluntary decision on his parents part.

No, it's the exact opposite. His parents voluntarily held him back for the third grade. The school counselors told them they didn't have to, and they did anyway.