I’ve done no such thing. You’ve had ample opportunity to make your own actual argument. I doubt were going to see one from you.
So let’s go over a few things you don’t understand:
*I have in fact made my argument for why team penalties are desirable and necessary; see post 47 et al.
*Your repeated insistence that it is my responsibility to make your argument for why team penalties are not desirable or necessary is not grounded in any principle of sound argumentation. It is not “my work” to attempt to determine what you believe or why by magic if you refuse to explain.
*The term “JAQing” means hiding behind bad-faith questions instead of openly asserting or defending one’s own position. The classic example is rephrasing 9/11 denialism as something along the lines of “I just want to know, how can jet fuel melt steel beams?” - the person putting forward this question has no actual interest in being educated about the tensile strength of steel and just wants to put forth a claim that can’t be defended reasonably (“jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”) and then opt out of defending either his immediate position or its implications (“9/11 was a hoax”) by purporting, dishonestly, that he is not engaging in any kind of advocacy at all. You seem to think that any writing which uses question marks for any purpose constitutes “JAQing” even though I have made my position clear on the issue at hand, I am perfectly willing to defend it or answer any questions you have about it, and the questions in my post are far from rhetorical but are direct inquiries as to what your beliefs are. This is an incorrect application of the term.
*If you are not willing to defend the notion that “even if a player actually kills a referee on the field, the team should not suffer any collective penalties” then, by strict logic, you do not actually support the notion that collective penalties are wrong in all circumstances. You simply disagree about in which circumstances they should be used.
They’d probably have to miss that game because I’m sure a number of those kids would be fucking traumatized if they saw an official killed by a teammate right in front of them.
They’d be no more deserving of punishment though. You’d have to be a dipshit to think so.
Now we’re not talking about criminal liability. The “punishment” in question is being disqualified from the playoffs. Just to make sure I understand, you think that if a member of a team literally murders a referee on the field during the game, then that team should still be able to win that game and go on and play in the next round of the playoffs a week later? This is the ruling you would make if you were the commissioner of the league in question, and you are so confident about it that you think it’s impossible to disagree without being a “dipshit”?
If I am understanding you correctly so far, then I have some followup questions. Does this only apply if the referee hits his head on the ground while being tackled by the player like in the video? Would it be different if the player took off his helmet and beat the ref with it? How about if the player took a knife out of his shoe and killed the ref that way?
Suspending a team from participation in the balance of the season isn’t “punishment,” at least not in the circumstances of this incident.
Let’s remember that this is high school football. Participation in team sports is part of the education of the players, right? The coach is supposedly an educator. The principal and the rest of the faculty of the school are most certainly educators.
In this case, a player with a clearly demonstrated propensity to violence was allowed to continue to play in multiple sports.
That says something about the educators. It says they have a tolerance for violence. It says that they, the coach and other educators, teach that, if one is athletically talented, that the rules don’t apply, that violence that would be utterly unacceptable from other people in other circumstances, is perfectly okay for a football player.
Imagine that a student at this school had violently assaulted someone in the parking lot of the school, maybe a teacher who had given him a poor grade. Do you think he would have gotten a pass on the first assault?
Of course not. But this student athlete did.
The team should be suspended because the faculty and coaching staff of this school are failing at their jobs. They are clearly not doing a good job as educators.
It’s not “punishing” the students. It’s protecting them from “educators” who are doing them harm.
Separate string of posts, last countered by me in post 60, which is thus far still unaddressed by you.
You then pop back in a day later, not directly countering anyone else’s point, not quoting anyone, not tagging anyone, not addressing the post immediately prior to yours, with a question about killing people.
You could have countered someone else’s point. You could have made an argument yourself. Instead you just asked a question. Others not being interested in playing that game says precisely zero about their position.
I’ve stated before there are reasons for not playing games. I thought of another: a student at a sibling’s school’s swim team randomly died in the pool. People were generally and understandably fucked up about this. And while I’m not 100% sure it was the correct decision, they ended up withdrawing from the rest of the season. So if we want to go full-on ridiculous scenario and imagine a player gunning down a bunch of people, doubtless there are some non-punishment reasons to discontinue play.
There is no notion to “defend” because nobody has used it to support an argument. You are welcome to do so. What-about-[made-up scenario]? is not an argument. It does not counter anything I have written. I’ve told you why your arguments are wrong. Whether you choose to counter that is up to you. Here, I’ll even help you out:
Ruken, your positions (teammate Joe Johnson did nothing wrong → punishing Joe Johnson is inappropriate) are wrong because 1) it means that if ____, then ____; 2) Joe did do something wrong, and here’s why; 3) It doesn’t matter if Joe did something wrong or not, it is just and proper to punish him anyway because ____.
Ah, the “for their own good” gymnastics. The coach has been punished. The teammate has been suspended, arrested, and charged. It is not a given that Joe Johnson will be harmed by being allowed to continue to play football .
It’s not “gymnastics.” Seems to me that the sports program at that school has been a total failure as far as education goes.
And don’t we all agree that the function of a sports program at a high school is meant to be educational?
So kind of a timeout while the school regroups and reconsiders and figures out how to do a better job seems to me to be a good idea.
I totally understand that which is why I wasn’t objecting that strongly to their inability to compete in the playoffs. I was responding directly to the suggestion that the other players bear some responsibility for the actions of their teammate. They don’t. If the team is punished it’s unfortunate, but that kind of thing happens. It’s like losing your job after the business you work for goes under after something terrible the owner does. You don’t deserve that fate but sometimes life sucks.
I still don’t think it’s necessary for the team to be excluded from the playoffs. I get why it was done, but we see all the time in football when a team has a terrible player you don’t take wins away or dock their record. If the team as a whole is guilty of cheating then that’s warranted, but not for the conduct of a single player.
I understand that in this case the school allowed this to happen and the argument can be made that since you can’t trust the judgment of the educators, that the players aren’t benefiting. That’s a solid point. But I still don’t see how the severity of the injury should warrant further sanctions for anyone but the player responsible.
That’s hyperbole. Again, do you damn an entire program for the conduct of one player? They absolutely screwed up, and their poor decisions and most likely the guidance of the coach was lacking. But the state committee did the right thing with probation, in putting the program on notice that if it repeats these mistakes then it’s a failure.
I think we disagree on this. A little bit. Obviously, in the sports culture of that place, in those circumstances, the other players are taught that they don’t bear responsibility for the actions of their teammate. But maybe they should be taught that they do have some responsibility. Win as a team, lose as a team, etc. I think that would be a good lesson.
The analogy isn’t good. Massive difference between a poor player and a player engaging in actual violent criminal behavior on the field.
Thanks. I think we differ on what’s to be done about it, but are in agreement on some fundamentals.
Suspension isn’t damnation. Damnation is, after all, eternal. Suspension isn’t.
It’s the difference between Hell and Purgatory. Those in Purgatory are ultimately going to heaven. They’re just on suspension for a bit. It’s corrective, not punitive.
Their function remains somewhat mysterious to me. I’ve been trying to leave my personal feelings about football in particular aside.
That’s not how it works anywhere. For example, I work for a state government agency. I am instructed that if one of my coworkers is being problematic, I could remind them that their behavior is a problem but I’m not to be confrontational about it, and/or I should contact their supervisor. And that’s it, I am not only not required to correct the behavior of someone that doesn’t report to me, I’m discouraged from it. I could be disciplined for it. It’s like junior modding on this board. We don’t know that these kids weren’t reporting this kid and being told to shut up, or given assurances that it would be “dealt with” while nothing happens. We can’t really judge that, unless someone here has more information.
I’m literally talking about violent criminal behavior on the field. Does the name Myles Garrett mean anything to you?
By the way, the multi quote function on this board is shit. 
No, calling an entire program a “failure” is damnation. There’s a difference between saying they failed in one case and that the whole program is a total failure. That’s the hyperbole.
Remember, it won’t work unless each [quote] and [/quote] tag are on their own line.
I at least partially fixed the quote tags for you.
I apologize. I thought when you said
that you were talking about a poor player, that that’s what you meant by “terrible player.” No, the name Myles Garret means nothing to me, sorry, so I don’t know what your point is.
I’m sure you’re right. And I think that’s unfortunate when it comes to high school sports. I definitely don’t think the same standards should apply to an adult working environment that apply to high school sports.
It certainly wasn’t true many decades ago when I played on my high school’s basketball team. There was a code of honor, and we were strongly discouraged from tolerating or condoning unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of our teammates.