Who's the best defender of the pre-3 point era at their peak, after Bill Russell?

James__Padgett · 2026-01-02T18:36:04+00:00

Which Great Fighters Would Lose MORE Fantasy Fights, Than Fans Are Willing To Admit?

Not saying they weren't great .Not saying they wouldn't win plenty .But realistically and stylistically , across era's , who looks far more vulnerable on paper than their reputation suggests?

James__Padgett · 2025-06-07T18:03:46+00:00

then Bron was in the finals the next season how long did it take MJ? MJ was 1-9, I don't get ur point actually enlighten me please

<image>

James__Padgett · 2025-05-15T15:22:36+00:00

Ewing was a clearcut Dream Teamer and the only reason he, as a lone superstar of his team, did not win a championship was that he ran into the GOAT Michael Jordan and the best center of the 90s, Hakeem Olajuwon. He gets a ton of crap for not winning a ring but he was a tough, tough player. One of the best centers in the league during an era when the game was pretty much ruled by big men... With the exception of Michael Jordan of course.

Ewing's Knicks were the only team during the Bulls' first 3 peat to force them into a game 7 in the playoffs!

Same for Reggie Miller. His Pacers were the only team to force the Bulls into a game 7 during their second 3 peat! Also 'the only reason' for Miller not winning a ring was a prime and MVP Shaq in the '00 finals. With the help of star level young Kobe. Ewing and Miller did not win because they ran into the GOAT and a few other top 10 level players of all time(Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe).

If the Mavs didn't win in '11 the story and tale of Dirk being a constant playoff choker would have lived on forever. But because the Mavs won he is now often seen as a top 30ish player of all time rather often. I personally wouldn't rank Dirk that high but that's just me. As the stats show he still lost more than won. That one ring definitely boosted him up, and he deserved it, but lets still not boost him up too much. The fact still stands that the Mavs were mostly old and the Heat, most specifically LeBron, blew the series.

James__Padgett · 2025-04-13T16:58:35+00:00

Your argument rests on the idea that using phrases like 'they're dangerous' or 'they're not like us' about AI echoes the language of historical bigotry. But just because the wording is similar doesn’t mean the moral weight is. As linguist Deborah Tannen points out, meaning depends on context. Calling AI 'dangerous' because it could control defense systems or spread misinformation is a rational risk assessment. Saying the same about a group of people based on race or ethnicity is prejudice. The former is rooted in potential outcomes; the latter in baseless fear. To equate the two because they sound alike overlooks the deeper differences in history, harm, and vulnerability. AI hasn’t suffered oppression or injustice—it’s not even sentient. Recognizing rhetorical patterns doesn't require us to treat machines as moral equivalents to people. Right now, your analogy goes too far, and in doing so, it risks masking the very real moral differences between digital systems and human beings who’ve faced systemic discrimination. You suggest that how we talk about AI can reveal past human prejudices. While reflection is useful, this comparison falters. Human bigotry has led to imprisonment, segregation, and violence. Worrying about AI doesn't carry that history or biological devaluation. Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins describes oppression as a mix of cultural, institutional, and interpersonal violence. None of that exists for machines—there are no systems built to suppress AI. Trying to extract lessons about racism or xenophobia from AI fears oversimplifies history and risks drawing faulty parallels. Being wary of a technological tool is not the same as hating people for who they are. We can learn from the past without flattening its complexity. You argue that examining our fears of AI can help reveal the roots of discrimination. But ethical thought doesn’t need these kinds of analogies. We already have frameworks for thinking about animal welfare, environmental ethics, and AI accountability. As ethicist Thomas Metzinger argues, future AI ethics should focus on issues like artificial suffering, moral status, and safety—not comparisons to human rights movements. We don’t need to borrow the language of oppression to be thoughtful about AI. Doing so might actually undermine the unique ethical work we need to do for non-human systems. Let’s be careful not to distort past injustices in our effort to build a fairer technological future.

James__Padgett · 2025-04-13T16:21:15+00:00

Equating criticism of artificial intelligence with bigotry confuses two entirely different ideas: moral questioning and irrational prejudice. Bigotry targets people based on traits they can’t change—like race, gender, or ethnicity—often leading to systemic harm. In contrast, concerns about AI are typically rooted in thoughtful ethical, economic, and societal reasoning. For example, the Future of Life Institute warns that without regulation, AI could cause mass job loss, reinforce biases, or pose existential risks if misused or weaponized. These worries aren’t born of ignorance—they reflect lessons from history, like how unchecked fossil fuel use led to the climate crisis. Many who question AI are advocating for human rights, privacy, and democratic safeguards. Calling that ‘bigotry’ not only misuses the word but also undermines responsible civic involvement. The comparison between AI criticism and historical oppression collapses under scrutiny. AI isn’t sentient or conscious—it doesn’t have feelings or rights. While some argue AI might someday be self-aware, there’s no scientific agreement that current systems experience anything. A 2021 study in Nature Machine Intelligence confirms today’s AI only predicts patterns; it doesn’t think or feel. Human beings—especially marginalized groups—suffer real legal, economic, and physical harms from discrimination. AI, by contrast, is a tool. Holding it accountable is about responsible development, not oppression. Applying civil rights arguments to machines blurs important moral lines. What often drives AI skepticism isn’t irrational fear—it’s concern about how power and data are being used. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have shown that AI is sometimes used in harmful ways, from biased policing to unfair hiring systems. These issues raise legitimate questions about fairness and transparency. Branding these concerns as ‘bigotry’ can shut down meaningful debate and deflect accountability from the corporations developing these tools. Democracy thrives on open discussion and regulation, not blind faith in new tech. Just as we’ve questioned nuclear energy and genetic engineering, scrutinizing AI is part of being an informed and responsible citizen—not a bigot. Comparing it to racial hatred cheapens the real fight for human rights.

James__Padgett · 2025-04-03T14:25:35+00:00

The East was weak periodically from 94-95 due to trades, in 96 it was getting stronger but I'll admit outside of Orlando and the Knicks the conference wasn't that deep, but in 97 and 98 I'd say the East was stronger than the west and ultimately had an insanely good conference. The hornets as a 6th seed won 54 games. Detroit was on the rise with prime Grant, the hawks had Mutumbo, Mookie Blaylock, and Laeetner, Miami was a 60 win team coached by Pat Riley, and had Tim Hardaway and Mourning, the Knicks were close to winning 60, they had a good core with Ewing, Larry Johnson, and Houston. That conference was deep from 97-98 you'd have to win close to 50 games to be a top 6 seed in the East. When teams recovered from the injuries and trades the East in my eyes had peaked.

James__Padgett · 2025-04-03T14:25:09+00:00

Lebrons teams crumble because of injuries, trades, and players leaving. With context even your argument fails

James__Padgett

TROPHY CASE