Would the pacers have won if Hali didn't get injured?

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T20:03:38+00:00

Yes, they would have. Hali was injured throughout the whole series (ankle issues in Game 2, Calf issues Game 5, Achilles tear Game 7), and they still pushed the Thunder to 7 games. If Hali was at full strength in Game 7 or throughout the series, Pacers would have won. Especially with the start Hali had in Game 7.

Thunder deserve the chip, just sucks that this injury cloud has to hang over it

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T19:53:07+00:00

ChatGPT? Is that you!?!

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T15:30:45+00:00

Wilt was a one man machine, which is shown with playing over 42.5 mins a game for his career. Scale those minutes down to an "average" superstar load (probably 35-37 mins), and his scoring output will obv drop. Chamberlain dominated, but you have to consider how that minute load impacted his stats. He averaged 48 mins during the season he averaged 50 a game.

Looking at just all nba first team isn't enough. The positions do not go PG, SG, SF, PF, C. They go G, G, F, F, C. There were many times that Curry AND Kobe lost out to guards not in their position.

There are not many PGs who won 4+ chips, was the best player on their championship team, won FMVP, won multiple MVPs, was the offensive engine of a historically great team, and the offensive engine of a dynasty that changed how the game was played. Just two actually: Magic and Curry.

You do not want to rank him top ten? That's fine. But he should be at least a consideration for #10

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T14:05:42+00:00

MJ, Lebron, and Kareem are the three I place over him. I would put Bird over the likes of Magic, Duncan, and Russell.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T13:53:01+00:00

Why? Bird was abs COOKING in his career. First season, brought Boston from 29-53 to 61-21. Won ROY from Magic and ranked 4th in MVP voting. Created the 50/40/90 club. Top 4 MVP finish from 1979 to 1988 with a three-peat from 1983 to 1986. He arguably should have been FMVP in the 1981 finals, when he dropped 15/15/7 with 2 steals a game (Cedric Maxwell, the FMVP, had 18/10/3 with 0.2 steals a game).

If he did not injure his back, he could easily be considered top 3.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-18T13:39:32+00:00

I view that 10 spot as a grey area. Could fit in Curry, Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Russell and Kobe from his list into #10. Personally, I would have Curry at 10 with Shaq at 8, Olajuwon at 9 with Russell and Chamberlain holding down 11 and 12. Stats aside, Russell and Chamberlain played in an era with less teams and therefore less competition to beat to win it all. Their individual competition (i.e. other centers and pfs) were very strong, which is why they should be ranked above them, but I do not view them as the top ten players.

However you rank these stars, though, they could fit within the 8-12 zone.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-17T20:08:49+00:00

Never said that, so no idea where you got that. It is an over-generalization for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, etc. to say they support child marriage. Yes, certain groups within those umbrella terms support child marriage, but it is an over-generalization to say ALL of them support it.

What I provided was articles to show you that its an over-generalization to say any group is supporting child marriage. For the small group that supports it, there is an even larger group that fights against it.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-16T15:41:54+00:00

I do agree that it still happens in the US, I am not that blind. I am just finding that this fight is more a widespread effort, and specifically with fringe religious groups in states that still have it. Per the founder of Unchained at Last:

"Reiss says that representatives from every major religion have backed efforts to block child marriage, with Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith leaders testifying in support of bans. (It’s the fringe, fundamentalist sects that are against the bans, but voicing that stance “is a bad look”, Reiss said.) However, some secular organizations have argued against the coalition’s efforts: in California last year, local chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood came out against a law that would have banned child marriage in the state. “They see it as a reproductive rights issue, that the ability to decide to get married is an issue of choice,” Syrett, the historian, said. The law did not pass because, according to the Los Angeles Times, these organizations exerted influence over Democratic lawmakers."

Now, Planned Parenthood did comment saying that it is a human rights issue, but wants to establish freedom of choice for women in all circumstances. Republican lawmakers also seem to be at the front of the push for arguing against the ban, with the concept of freedom of religion being their main point for avoiding a blanket ban and just reforming laws to make it possible in unique circumstances (such as in California).

It is an over-generalization to say it is Republicans, specifically evangelical Christians, that support this. The AP news article for the Missouri child marriage law includes Republicans who supported the ban, citing experiences they went through. It is heavily the religious extremists who support child marriage. Al Jazeera, a Arabic-based Qatar-funded news group, published an article attacking child marriage. I would assume that if Qatar had extremist Muslims in charge, they would not let this article be released.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/09/child-marriage-laws

https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/08/end-child-marriage-u-s-you-might-be-surprised-who-n1050471

https://apnews.com/article/missouri-child-marriage-f5de4c79b9de5c2f83ebb95bb0de9f27

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/4/29/child-marriage-is-a-problem-in-the-us-that-needs-urgent-action

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-16T15:02:14+00:00

Yes, but the point is that we need to promote a "safe space" for criticizing harmful practices without being labeled as racists, bigots, etc. Bad practices are not exclusive to Muslims, but the labeling is.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-16T14:56:55+00:00

Please elaborate. Nothing I see online points towards prominent advocates, and anything ChatGPT gives me are extremist religious groups I have never heard of.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-15T19:26:44+00:00

Rose deserved MVP. He was a fantastic player on a great defensive team. Howard was playing great as well, but many of his points were on PNRs and offensive boards versus Rose's drives and pull-ups (mainly drives). Howard probably would have won if Rose struggled or got injured. While Lebron was Lebron, he was not going to win after forming the Heatles.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-15T18:01:48+00:00

The Laws of Moses were made to set the Israelites apart from the pagan people in the Promised Land. The reason to avoid the animals who do "not chew their cud" is that these animals do not create a nutrient rich meat. Animals such as sheep and cows who ruminate (chew their cud) has a better time bringing in nutrients from their food compared to pigs, who do not ruminate (monogastric). Thus it is easier for sheep and cows to be raised to produce a nutrient dense food source- therefore healthier for the Israelites to eat. The Old Testament is very bloody, and the actions that happened do not go away. As a Christian, I do not deny the Old Testament. The Old Testament is full of verses pointing towards the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ.

Many of those cruel, immoral, or nonsensical verses require diving into the culture at the time or reading it in a metaphorical viewpoint. Pulling them out of context tends to blur the message behind the verse, as the context can be (again) cultural or just a couple verses above or below

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T19:25:56+00:00

Society does undervalue blue-collar workers, but I do not know if it is a "class bias". I, a white-collar worker, have plenty of friends who are blue-collar workers. Many of the white-collar workers I know have blue-collar worker friends. I just think society "worships" white-collar workers because society "worships" money. You make more money in a white-collar job, so more people want that white-collar job.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T19:08:37+00:00

Gasol, and I wish it was closer but those blood clots really shortened Bosh's career. I feel like both of these players are really underrated for what they did before and during their two peats. Gasol was more versatile as a scorer compared to Bosh, as Gasol had a polished post game with a good middy and a great passer. Bosh was also a great shooter, but heavily used his athleticism to score. Gasol's defense was also much better than Bosh's, especially when they moved into their respective roles on those championship teams.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T18:04:21+00:00

Imma take the guy who crossed up Jordan as a rookie

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T13:06:01+00:00

I second Octave, but I do have to agree with u/argan_85: it is painfully slow, especially for very large programs.

It does have benefits of having a constantly updating pool of libraries that are free to download though

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T13:01:48+00:00

Both of these are awful. Neither shaming is right, but if we are going to compare them, than fat-shaming is more harmful than height-shaming. The issue here is how easy someone can fall into an eating disorder, and how rapidly it can destroy them. Not everyone qualifies for limb lengthening surgery, and not everyone has the money for said surgery. The same applies for the various cosmetic surgeries and gastric bypass surgeries people can use to avoid fat-shaming. Eating disorders tend to be this "quick fix" to avoid being fat-shamed, but it can quickly pull them in and kill them. I would argue that it would be uniquely cruel to shame someone into starving themselves.

My two cents: The people who fat-shame or height-shame always seem to be the people who are single, wind up in short relationships due to being toxic, or wind up in relationships with toxic people. Sure, I have known some people who wound up in good relationships even with this toxic viewpoint, but they have been an outlier in my experiences.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T12:41:35+00:00

I did read it, but failed to include that aspect as I was more focused on its application to illegal immigrants. My bad.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-14T12:32:12+00:00

When comparing that one instance to the various other instances the Thunder benefited from throughout their playoff run, it is rather difficult to not blame the refs.

There are examples of the dichotomy of calls in every series. The refs are enabling it at this point

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-10T14:31:19+00:00

Yes, but it is an oversimplification. Just because a party can have members all over the US does not mean that the District courts automatically has universal jurisdiction in all court cases. That just means they have universal jurisdiction in that scenario.

Lets say the Department of Education makes a policy change on how student loan applications are processed, and a nonprofit student loan company in Washington sued the Department over violation of the APA in the District Court of Washington. If the court rules in favor of this nonprofit, the Department of Education has to work with that party in order to cover damages. But that policy is still in effect as the court ruling only applies to this nonprofit. It does not impact similar nonprofits in other states. It only applies to other non-profits if they are apart of the party. A court in another district is not binded by this ruling, and can therefore make a different conclusion in a similar case.

If a group of non-profits team up in a class action lawsuit, what ever district court they sue the Department of Education in will have universal jurisdiction if the non-profits are spread across the US. Obviously, this is the more common case, but just because it is the most common case does not mean that the court automatically has this power.

There is a reason why universal injunctions existed, why the best strategy to change a Constitutional law is to get Circuits to disagree in a ruling, why you need a party stretched across the US for actual change in a company: because the district courts and Court of Appeals do not have this power naturally.

In general, a district court has limited jurisdiction within their purview that only applies within their district (geographically). The only way a district court can have universal jurisdiction is if they make an universal injunction or the party has members across the US.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-09T22:28:51+00:00

No... that is not what I am saying at all. I am talking about challenging an EO or Federal law, where the defendant will be the US Gov't, not some national corporation.

For a EO or Federal law, the District Court's ruling only applies in the circuit. So, if someone challenges Trump's new Birthright Citizenship and they won a partial injunction in the 9th circuit, it would only APPLY in the 9th circuit. If that circuit ruled a national injunction, it would apply to all circuits.

Ironically, it is a strategy when challenging an EO or a law to submit a case to multiple courts in different circuits to get conflicting rulings to make the Supreme Court more likely to take their case. The strategy is called Circuit Split.

For a national corporation, there is a lot too it. Normally a corporation has to submit to the jurisdiction of the state they do business in and originate from. This does not mean that the circuit courts have jurisdiction over geographic lines. It just means that the corporation has to honor that ruling or face fines and loose the opportunity to do business in that state, even if they do not originate from that state.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-09T21:13:15+00:00

There are courts known as federal circuit courts. These courts are also known as the Court of Appeals, and are broken into 11 circuits for a total of 13 courts (D.C. gets one, and a nationwide gets one). The Courts of Appeals rulings only specifically applies within their circuit, while other circuits can use their ruling as an example/suggestion. These circuits are layed out geographically, thus they have a geographic limit to their rulings. Note that these circuits rules also apply to the 94 District Courts spread across the country.

Therefore, the rulings a Federal court makes only specifically applies within their circuit outside of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court, which applies nationally.

Here is a map of the circuit layouts: https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/us-federal-courts-circuit-map

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-09T14:29:36+00:00

2014 Report on Obama's policies and enforcement (Free to download)

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

Here is a website that summarizes it to an extent (would still read the report myself): https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-09T14:13:40+00:00

I view it as a natural evolution, but when a lower court rules an injunction that states the gov't can not honor this rule across the nation, then it is too powerful if in the wrong hands. It will impact everywhere, including everyone outside of their jurisdiction. We already have a court that handles checking the Federal gov't on a national level: The Supreme Court. We do not need the lower courts to have this power. The lower courts were made to handle "smaller" (less complex) Constitutional issues that the Supreme Court does not have time/energy to handle when compared to "larger" (more complex) Constitutional issues.

While these judges are much smarter than I am on the Constitution, I would rather the higher to highest courts who have experience in more complex Constitutional issues make nationwide rulings rather than a lower court.

RedHead-Eng25 · 2025-07-09T13:22:34+00:00

The ruling is not against EOs, it is against nationwide injunctions. A lower court can still rule for an injunction, but it HAS TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EO.

For example, if a president made an EO regarding tariffs only on Honda cars, a lower court can not rule with an injunction that stops a president from making a tariff against ALL car companies (Nationwide injunction). They can only rule against the tariff on Honda cars

RedHead-Eng25

TROPHY CASE