I'm starting to get a cramp in my neck from SMH'ing so much. Done a little face-palming. Perhaps an eye roll or two. Almost sharted. Grew a couple more gray hairs. Penis became limper. All for one reason: I made the mistake of reading an ESPN message board about the Incognito-Martin affair. Please don't click away from this FanPost because you are inundated about this saga - I assure you that it is not the premise of this article. I martyred myself this morning so I could bring to light just why you shouldn't waste your time on any other Dolphins website than "The Phinsider."
For me, I like to argue. My family, instead of talking about how our day was, we argue about whether you indeed save time finding matching socks after laundry is done as opposed to just throwing them all together and finding the matching pair when you need them. We also heavily debate whether my dad is more of a p*ssy when he is hungry or when he is tired. (Don't worry, the SUTTON'S get along just fine.) At any rate, I like to argue and apparently so do people on ESPN message boards. However, 90% of the content of these message boards falls into a wide spectrum of illogical and fallacious arguments that I'd like to illuminate going forward so you don't fall into the same trap I did this morning. I'd hate for you to almost shart on those new boxer-briefs.
I will be taking direct quotes from Dan Le Batard's article on ESPN. I will incorporate the entire quote so you can gain the full context. Without further ado, let's call some people out on their fallacious arguments and remember that we don't have to worry about this over-the-top buffoonery here at the Phinsider!
Quote #1: "Yeah Nate, he would probably get away with it, after all he comes from an affluent back ground and is a Stanford grad. It's gotta be everyone else's fault."
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: This kind of argument is LOADED with fallacies, and I will give you a couple examples. Appeal to Probability - a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case. This guy is essentially saying, "Rich people and educated people 'get away with it', so this is true of Jonathan Martin." We all know that rich people and educated people DO get away with things, at the same time they DON'T get away with things. Depends on the situation, the person, and other tangential circumstances. No way can you assume Martin gets away with anything because he is rich and/or educated. Ask Bernie Madoff if that's the case. He is serving 150 years in prison and forfeited over $17 billion because of his Ponzi schemes. Other informal fallacies that can be attributed to this quote: ecological fallacy (inferences about specific individuals based on aggregate statistics), fallacy of the single cause (one simple cause of an outcome when, in reality, it is caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes), appeal to fear (an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the other side, i.e., he is appealing to our emotional stance towards people unfairly getting away with things due to power or prestige). Trust me, I could go on and on. Let's move on to another quote.
Quote #2: "if you think it's 'name-calling' for someone to state that you're the boy you appear to be, then you're as weak as you think Martin is."
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: Whoa! A lot of conclusions are made here, neither of which are valid or sound (logician jargon, but I think you can gather what it means). This is a classic case of denying the antecedent, where an argument is phrased as such - if A, then B; not A, therefore not B. The consequent (B) is claimed to be false because the antecedent is claimed to be false (A). Essentially this guy is saying, "You are not strong, because calling you a boy is not name-calling." I'm 31. If someone called me a boy, I'd be pissed, especially if I didn't know them - and it's a hasty generalization (another fallacy) to assume that others should not be upset by an emotionally-laden term like calling someone a boy. Frankly, even if he's 14, but considers himself a man, however convoluted that might be, shouldn't he have the right to be upset without being dubbed "weak"? The guy even acknowledges that he "appears to be" a boy - meaning, HE DOESN'T KNOW FOR SURE. There are literally a dozen or so fallacies involved in this kind of "argument". I'm not gonna bother listing them all.
Quote #3: "You got upset because he called you a "boy" and said he had to resort to name calling. Then you turned right around and called him a "hypocrite", you hypocrite. You want to whine about name calling, perhaps you should refrain from it yourself. Hypocrite."
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: OMG! People loooooooooove to use the following two words in an argument - "ignorant" and "hypocrite." Nothing puts someone in their place like calling them ignorant or a hypocrite. WHATEVER! They've become cliches at this point. As a person who double majored in philosophy and psychology, plus dinner table discussions with my family centered around arguments, my opinion is that people who use these words really have nothing to say. They are simply emotionally-charged words that hide the fact that the argument lacks substance. Essentially, however, this is an ad hominem argument: he is attacking the arguer instead of the argument. He called him a hypocrite...TWICE! This guy is essentially saying, "You got mad because someone made you mad, and then you turned around and got mad at the person who made you mad." Would you bother reading something as repetitive and self-evident as this?
Quote #4: "So if Martin would have killed that butterball fag Imcognito then what? Dont compare war to football thats beyond idiotic."
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: LOL. See Quote #3.
Quote #5: "Martin permitted the "bullying"- what a foul weak term that is- when he should have stood up and put a stop to it. F him- I wish the worst for him."
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: LMAO. See Quote #3 and #4.
Quote #6: "And the bottom line is Dan, the Dolphins are a cesspool garbage franchise, clinging to a petrified relic 40+ year old ancient history era (Don Shula, perfect season, horrible teal blazers, Nixon etc). The Dolphins have been so putrid and inane they have inconceivably made people in South Florida forget about Jeffrey Loria, David Sampson, their stadium shenanigans, and their clap-trap sports franchise circus known as the Marlins…"
Why you shouldn't pay attention to it: Ummm, we are fans, first of all. And we have had our share of bumps along the road but, "cesspool", "putrid", "inane"? I've touched on this fallacy earlier, but the main gist is that he's using emotionally-laden terms to manipulate emotions, rather than use valid reasoning. As it currently reads, leaving out the emotionally-flamboyant words, "The Dolphins are a franchise who are nostalgic about previous successes, but have lost fan interest because of the stadium debacle with the Marlins." Doesn't that sound so much more, um, constructive? This guy uses terms that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. Not the greatest way to reach your audience, in my humble opinion, if you are indeed trying to say something with substance.
Which brings me to, not only a congratulations, but a full-blown standing ovation for Kevin, James, and the rest of the mods on here that don't permit this kind of fluff in our forums. The moderators of this site provide juicy headlines, relentless input and feedback, informative articles, and are the most dedicated staff I have seen on any Dolphins website. Podcasts, PhinsiderTV, Draft Roundtable, the list goes on and on. And the silver lining is: we know that they are diehard fans of our football team! They do their thaaaaang, 100% of the time, from this pretense. There is no ulterior motive, no conspiracies, no sensationalization to get clicks. We can't guarantee that on any other website that has Dolphins news (that I know of).
Thank you to those responsible for maintaining the website, and thank you, to all of the fans, who leave all this crap at the doorstep when we talk about our football team. I find our collection of misfits and miscreants to be educated and opinionated - doing it in the ergogenic sense, meaning, we come together to discuss facets of our team to promote growth. We don't use articles as means to denigrate each other. Do we have some "hiccups" along the road? Sure. But for all intents and purposes, this is the best place to discuss the Miami Dolphins. Please, keep your underwear clean, and just stay tuned to "The Phinsider." You'll thank me later.
Cheers to all of you, I look forward to many fruitful discussions! Phins up!