[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Folks, please don't feed the trolls.

Standard troll behavior: find a position sure to fire up the posters, use a logical fallacy to argue that position, and sit back and enjoy.

The problem is that, so long as you accept the premise of the logical fallacy (which is the either-or fallacy in this case, with a dollop of oversimplification thrown in for flavor) you have fed the troll. For example, would you agree that kids should be taught to respect the law? O.K., the government of Germany passes a law that says you have to turn in for execution every Jew you know. Are you going to teach your children not to obey the law (how shameful!)?

First, ignoring the commisioner teaches children nothing about "rules," because the commisioner doesn't have the authority to make that rule. The commisioner may have the authority to fire a coach, but that doesn't equal authority to make rules on coaches' behavior (hence the investigation now). Your boss may have the authority to fire you as well, but do they have the authority to make sex with them a condition of your employment? That's called extortion (as the threat is based on abuse of power, not clearly delineated use of power).

But all this is irrelevant, because a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I want my child to understand when rules should be broken (i.e., when they are invalid or unjust), not make them slavish followers of rules or total anarchists. Arguing this under fallacious terms isn't going to do anything other than amuse a troll or two...

[Petronski]

Folks, please don't feed the trolls.

Agreed.   I'm done with that.

That's exactly what's going on here.

[NittanyLion]

The problem is that, so long as you accept the premise of the logical fallacy (which is the either-or fallacy in this case, with a dollop of oversimplification thrown in for flavor) you have fed the troll. For example, would you agree that kids should be taught to respect the law? O.K., the government of Germany passes a law that says you have to turn in for execution every Jew you know. Are you going to teach your children not to obey the law (how shameful!)?

Well stated. I think you're exactly right as to what's going on here.

[robertpaulsen]

I would respond, but I'll instead follow your advice and not feed trolls who pop up late in a thread like a Whack-A-Mole with Nazi analogies.

Godwin's Law in action.

[Petronski]

By breaking up the team, the commissioner did the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home."

Definitely his right, but also childish and asinine.

[beezdotcom]

Comparing someone to a Nazi is needless in most cases.


Most, but not all.

[robertpaulsen]

"I want my child to understand when rules should be broken (i.e., when they are invalid or unjust), not make them slavish followers of rules or total anarchists."

And I want my child to understand that if they believe the rules to be invalid or unjust, they should work to change those rules.

The point you're missing (or ignoring) is that the coaches accepted the commissioner's conditions. They coached the entire season under those conditions. Then they violated those conditions in the final game and were fired for it.

It's disingenuous of you to compare that to the Nazi's enforcing behavior under penalty of death or an employer extorting sex from an employee.

You believe the end justifies the means, and that's what you're teaching your children. Well, I don't. There will always be those who disagree with the rules -- they're not necessarily right and they don't get a pass just because they disagree.