PseudoSABR

I mean which of these pitchers should we have signed? And really how many more wins does that player provide over Correa/Pelfry/Harden?

The time to pay market prices for mediocre or mid-tier pitching should have never been this year for the Twins. I don't find KC's moves at all enviable. As charger suggests, the article is totally weighted with the premise that the Twins some how missed the boat...

No, the comparison would not be "quite loose," as I suggested earlier I'm sure any legitimate study would find a statistically significant correlation bigotry of racism and homophobia.

I missed this. Sorry for the delay. It's not equivalent it's SIMILAR. That's all that is needed for a legitimate COMPARISON, as opposed to equation. Honestly, you're only serving to minimize the harm bigotry causes to homosexuals.

The implication here, is that I am or anyone in this thread is guilty of "intellectually stagnant prattling," which is a disingenuous (if not inaccurate) and a surprisingly pretentious claim. This sounds great. But again, I think the nature of discourse is more complicated than this rosy outcome. I wish it would be so, but I'm not at all convinced that Torii Hunter really adds much to that understanding. The implication is that there's no cost to us gaining this possible understanding and empowering folks like Hunter--but there is a cost, while we might better understand Hunter's point of view and the public reaction to it, we also give voice to a point of view that not simply stigmatizes a subset of people but also serves to dehumanize these people. Again, you're being disingenuous: brutishly shouting down homophobia? No one is even quite doing that. And one could argue that homophobia is in itself brutish. Given that you keep responding to my posts politely and thoughtfully, I must be mustering some bits of substance and reason. Coincidentally , I was a math and science tutor throughout my undergrad (though my graduate career has been a severe pivot), and I've found the same the conclusion. In my experience students failed to understand some basic principle and it was never about a lack of intelligence or capacity; it was a rewarding process to discover what was they found obscure, but that process was difficult. People have trouble telling you what they do not know, what piece they are missing, or what is the nature of belief or attitude However, this isn't physics we are discussing. For many this is a matter of Faith, and there is no reason that can combat Faith. Our focus should be not trying to convince those who are homophobic to change their ways, rather we should seek to disempower those who disseminate the kind of vitriol Hunter is guilty of, so as to not normalize and legitimatize bigoted thinking (though the right they may have to it).

Oh, of course, I'm giving up my principles because I'm tactlessly scorning Torii's homophobia. And where, exactly has anyone been harmfully tactless or recommended the behaviors of abortion protesters? I mean where the heck do you get off saying that I'm justifying something indecent? What is this indecent thing I've done? And frankly, Levi, you're the about the worse person who should be lecturing some one tact. It's laughable.

You're making a deterministic argument; all humans are products of their environments, even murders, pedophiles and any number of vile creatures--that's you're slippery slope; how can you give Hunter a pass and somehow hold anyone accountable for any of their actions, statements or beliefs? The question is rhetorical.

What are you talking about? I've taught at universities for more than a decade, fyi. But that shouldn't necessarily legitimate mine or anyone's opinion on this issue... And I don't doubt there's some ideologue hypocrite liberals someplace suppression someone's speech through PC bull****. But as a generalization liberals are beasts for the first amendment.

An Indian.

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their beliefs? How far are you willing to go down this slippery slope?

Look, to somehow suggest that the gains made by the LGBT community is demonstrative of their own kingness (to carry on my metaphor) totally obscures the deep dark tyranny-by-majority done onto that LGBT historically. Do you really think I lack knowledge about the gains of that community? My point is those gains are totally insufficient. Arguments don't exist in vacuums and not all arguments have equal truth values. Can you really expect an argument between Reason and Faith or between that which is demonstrable true and that which is demonstrable false? Such arguments are sophistry and can only obscure reason and fact. Let's get practical here, what tangible good can possible come from a debate about the ethics of homophobia?

Jesus, this is a silly response. You're using a slippery slope argument to transparently distort my point. Are you really suggesting Torii ought be treated with compassion for making homophobic remarks? Or is this argument another one of your academic points you are making?

This writer is top-notch. I actually feel educated after reading. Good get for fangraphs.

Some of you, let this sink in. There's pettiness in this thread that beguiles decency. By arguing the finer points, we continue to crown those already king. Should decency lose on a foul, or some obscure legalese? Let's not be so innocent about the nuance some are asking for...

Pfft. Add pretentious to petty. There was nothing explicit about your small text. I wonder why someone would use an archaic greek word which is also a much more commonly used as a pejorative, instead of using say the word "unrefined."

How about moving it to the Sports Bar? It barely belongs in the Twins forum anyways...

Unrefined? You can't call some one an idiot, and then ask for them to show some refinement in comparisons. There does not need to be a one-to-one relationship for two social phenomenon to be compared. I'm sure any study would find there's a significant correlation between the kinds of oppression suffered from homosexuals to oppression suffered from a racial minority. Your point is petty at best and totally side-tracking...

Look, that's a precedent set by history. The notion that homosexual people deserve the same rights as heterosexual people has been stomped out by volume throughout history. You're being overly ideological in your notion of discourse and ignoring the historical weight of this particular debate. To suggest that there is a debate to be had about homophobia is insulting. The debate can be had about how we go about fostering a less homophobic culture, and nuance is important there, but there's nothing nuanced about ethics of homophobia. Again, the homophobic opinion affects the real life of others. That opinion isn't innocent and without consequence. Sure, there's a slippery slope in terms of the rabble of the majority, but this instance is hardly a case of tyranny of the majority (well it is, but in reverse, ironically).

Well, you used the word 'idiot', which seems to attack the person, rather than say using the word 'idiotic' which would attack the idea. But in any case, I'll take you at your word here.

Actually, you'd be able to spot a Mormon in the locker room because of their funny undies...

I think you're too hopeful about actually changing minds. I'm more concerned not with changing minds, but changing a culture that fosters homophobia. And of course, people who are homophobic aren't necessarily arriving at that conclusion with reason...

I suggest you read Passing by Nella Larsen. Can I compare religious intolerance to homosexual intolerance? Because I can't necessarily tell if someone is Jewish, Christian etc. by the way they look.

Fair, but generalizing the left or liberals is gonna get me fired up. And I agree tact matters, though that should hardly be our chief concern.

Why? Please explain.

Sure. But that's not really what nicksaviking was responding to (imo). Some are suggesting that 'a market place of ideas' can lead to some 'middle road' on the issue of homophobia. It's similar to people confusing balance for objectivity--the former balances opposing ideas without truth value, the latter does not.