# Telfair's Gotta Stay



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Isn't it interesting that the Nets would trade Kidd for SAR in a New Jersey moment - only if the deal included Telfair?

Hmmmmmm, here all this time, I thought this kid was over-rated?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Isn't it interesting that the Nets would trade Kidd for SAR in a New Jersey moment - only if the deal included Telfair?


Has NJ said this? Do you have a link?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Has NJ said this? Do you have a link?


OK, perhaps more speculation on Eggers part than anything else, but still..... 

From: PDX Tribune



> ....If the Blazers would be willing to part with rookie point guard Sebastian Telfair, they could almost surely make the deal. But, given Portland’s stance on Stoudamire, whose contract ends after this season — “wait and see,” Nash says — giving up Telfair seems unlikely.


----------



## Swoosh (May 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Has NJ said this? Do you have a link?


Here's your link


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

It's not only about talent with the Nets though...

he would be a huge marketing tool for them as they prepare for Brooklyn, and he would bring Brooklyn fans across the river before they even move.

Remember, this is a new owner who's sole reason for purchasing the Nets was to move them to Brooklyn as the main ingredient in a humongous real estate deal. 

Telfair's value to the Nets is bigger than his value to any other team.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

That may be the case, but I still don't see POR sending Telfair in ANY deal to Kidd. Nor should they (POR) even consider it, at this point.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It's not only about talent with the Nets though...
> 
> he would be a huge marketing tool for them as they prepare for Brooklyn, and he would bring Brooklyn fans across the river before they even move.
> 
> ...


Good point and well-said. But the Nets also recognize that Telfair could be a major talent in the making. The "local boy" thing only works if the player is good!


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Good point and well-said. But the Nets also recognize that Telfair could be a major talent in the making. The "local boy" thing only works if the player is good!



True, and until he gets consistent PT, nobody really knows how good he'll be. 

And I maintain my point that I've made before, that adding Kidd to the Blazers takes away from Telfair's value to them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


we're not trading for Kidd. 

he hit his wife, and also had an ungodly huge contract.

Why people continually fail to see that, I don't know


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> we're not trading for Kidd.
> ...



Probably has something to do with him being the best point guard in the league and making his teammates much better.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with the first statement but not the second -- Telfair is still *very* young whereas Kidd is, er....not. Apparently, though, they have a similar kind of court vision and, if that's true, having Kidd around to help mentor Telfair could dramatically *increase* Telfair's value. And, along with the question of how much longer Kidd plays, there's the point that he'll almost certainly play longer if his minutes drop... something that could happen with an emerging Telfair backing him up. Then there's the idea of having them both on the court at the same time. Sure, at this point outside shooting seems like it'd be weak but, with that kind of ball-handling on the court, it might not be an issue. Then, if even one of the Blazer SFs develops some range and/or get outside shooting at other positions, looooook out.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

That's great and all but Kidd still can't stroke a three and in the west he led the Suns where?

Nothing for nothing but Telfair is younger, faster and doesn't slap his wife up after a bad game. Oh yeah and isn't coming back from a leg injury at almost 30.

The upside of Telfair seems much brighter than the year or two left for Kidd.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> That's great and all but Kidd still can't stroke a three and in the west he led the Suns where?
> 
> Nothing for nothing but Telfair is younger, faster and doesn't slap his wife up after a bad game. Oh yeah and isn't coming back from a leg injury at almost 30.
> ...


Careful about using the terms _slap_ and _upside_ within the same references.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

The Nets can make their demands, but they are the ones who will have to suck on Kidd's 20 mil a year deal, which won't expire till he turns 38. AND they want Telfair?

In a couple of years, Kidd will be untradable. It will be very hard for them to be a FA player with Kidd + Jefferson taking up 30 mil per year.

If they sign Jefferson to a max deal starting off at 11 million they'll be at 40 mil with 7 players under contract. If they want Telfair, and to clean house. Fine, here's the new deal,

SAR, Stepania, Telfair + 1st round pick NJ for Kidd, Jefferson

Kidd
Jefferson
Ratliff
Miles
Randolph


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

id do that trade but to tell you the truth id rather keep sar till his contract expires and keep telfair then get kidd and jefferson


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> he hit his wife, and also had an ungodly huge contract.


The last part is relevant for sure, but you must be joking about the wife-hitting thing. That was several years ago, and Kidd got counseling for it. Even the most die-hard believers in "good character" (and that includes me) are willing to give a guy a second chance. 

Besides, what's worse--slapping your wife in the midst of an emotional argument, or cheating on her? Ruben Patterson did the latter, and he has apparently been forgiven by most Portland fans. He's also an important part of our team.


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Besides, what's worse--slapping your wife in the midst of an emotional argument, or cheating on her?


Slapping your wife is a FAR worse transgression. It is more easily forgiven, but it is much more indicative of a behavioral issue than having extra-marital sex.



> Ruben Patterson did the latter, and he has apparently been forgiven by most Portland fans. He's also an important part of our team.


Having an extramarital affair is his and his partner's business. Having a spousal abuse charge is public domain and punishable by law.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

If they want Telfair, and if the Blazers decide they are willing to take on Kidds contract, then I think that this trade works.

New Jersey trades: Jason Kidd 
2005 first round pick unprotected

New Jersey receives: Damon Stoudamire 
Qyntel Woods 
Vladimir Stepania 
Sebastian Telfair 

They get Telfair and get ridd of kidd, and the blazers upgrade the point and still get a young pick that will likely be a very low lottery pick.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

What amazes me about this board is that neither Kidd or Carter have ever wanted to be a Blazer or mentioned wanting to be part of this franchise at any part of their careers, and this board would give anything for them. Nice!

One day you guys might figure it out! If a player doesn't want to be part of your team no matter how good he is the team will suffer if his head is not in it. Do you really want the Blazers to go further down with guys like Carter or Kidd who don't want to be there and dog it? The same way Vince is doing right now???????

Yet a guy like Telfair who can't wait to play for us most of you wouldn't mind trading for one of them. 

Kidd and Carter are cancers on their teams and that's why they're being shopped.

Kidd got his prior coach fired and Carter is demanding a trade from a team that built the franchise around him. Well great!!!!!!

Both of these guys will bring a ton of baggage to our team with very little reward.

We don't need two more overpaid babies. 

No Thanks!!!!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> The last part is relevant for sure, but you must be joking about the wife-hitting thing. That was several years ago, and Kidd got counseling for it.


He had also done it several times before. Big coincidence that the time he gets "caught" by the media (due to Joumana calling the police) happens to be the time he goes and gets counselling.

The people who want to give a wife-beater a "second chance" (though, really, it's more like a fourth or fifth chance if you count his previous transgressions) yet bitterly blasted Wallace for not talking to the media and smoking pot are being utterly two-faced and inconsistent.



> Besides, what's worse--slapping your wife in the midst of an emotional argument, or cheating on her?


Scary, buddy. I hope you were joking.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Slapping your wife is a FAR worse transgression. It is more easily forgiven, but it is much more indicative of a behavioral issue than having extra-marital sex.


Huh??

Cheating on your wife is not a behavioral issue?

Your logic is backwards, to say the least. Hitting a spouse during a very emotional argument often indicates a temporary loss of control. It can be compared to screaming at an official when a call goes against you in an NBA game. But having an extramarital affair is very different. There is usually a lot of flirting and preparation for the event, not to mention special planning and logistics to be worked out. Someone who cheats has to really plan it out. Someone who temporarily loses his temper hasn't planned anything.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> What amazes me about this board is that neither Kidd or Carter have ever wanted to be a Blazer or mentioned wanting to be part of this franchise at any part of their careers, and this board would give anything for them. Nice!
> 
> One day you guys might figure it out! If a player doesn't want to be part of your team no matter how good he is the team will suffer if his head is not in it. Do you really want the Blazers to go further down with guys like Carter or Kidd who don't want to be there and dog it? The same way Vince is doing right now???????




Please show me an article where Carter is quoted as saying he did not want to come to Portland directly.


I recall an article a few weeks ago where Carter was being asked if had wanted to go to Portland. He replied... He had not really thought about it, he just wanted to play ball.

The article was with respect to Rose's comments about where there is smoke there is fire....


Most intelligent players will not say they will NOT go there or there... its professional suicide... and tempts Murphy's law


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

On the other hand Vince has been quoted many times saying he wants to stay in the east cause that's where his family and friends are. 

Portland would be his #2 choice I'm sure!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Hitting a spouse during a very emotional argument often indicates a temporary loss of control. It can be compared to screaming at an official when a call goes against you in an NBA game.


I would make a joke about this, but this is how you truly feel, yes? That's sad. I'm sure a woman who has been terrorized by her husband for years would feel really nice after hearing that from you.

You seriously need to have sensitivity training or something. I can't believe that you would compare the two...

No wonder you hate Wallace so much if you equate screaming at an official with spousal abuse.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> The people who want to give a wife-beater a "second chance" (though, really, it's more like a fourth or fifth chance if you count his previous transgressions) yet bitterly blasted Wallace for not talking to the media and smoking pot are being utterly two-faced and inconsistent.


Just for the record, the reason I disliked Wallace for not talking to the media was that I consider that to be an obligation of his employment and it effected my enjoyment of the the Blazer coverage. Not that I considered it worse than wife beating or rape or whatever.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hitting a spouse during a very emotional argument often indicates a temporary loss of control. It can be compared to screaming at an official when a call goes against you in an NBA game. 

According to whom? The spouse that got beaten up? Or the man doing the beating?

All of us lose it from time to time but most of us have a line we never cross no matter what. I cannot imagine for a minute that my brother however angry would hit his wife. My parents sure had some battles in a 47 year marriage but never did my father hit my mother. 
When someone cuts in front of me with 3" to spare I might say an obscenity, I don't get a gun and shoot them. There is a difference. Most of us realize that.
BTW I agree with the title of the thread, keep Telfair. We've gotten a bit off, haven't we?


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, perhaps more speculation on Eggers part than anything else, but still.....
> ...


Eggers is a RETARD dont listen to anything hes says hes realy full of $h!t 
im freinds with his son and he admited to makeing alot of his stuff up


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> But having an extramarital affair is very different. There is usually a lot of flirting and preparation for the event, not to mention special planning and logistics to be worked out. Someone who cheats has to really plan it out.


It sounds like you have a lot of expertise here, but it may be that some people who are less skilled in these affairs than you will just rush into them blindly without the proper preparation.

barfo


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh??
> ...


Wife beating is never a "temporary loss of control" it's always a reoccuring loss of control.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>crandc</b>!
> Hitting a spouse during a very emotional argument often indicates a temporary loss of control. It can be compared to screaming at an official when a call goes against you in an NBA game.
> 
> According to whom? The spouse that got beaten up? Or the man doing the beating?
> ...


You can hardly compare hitting his wis to yelling at a refarie


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Wow. 

To say beating is less of a problem than cheating boggles my mind. 

Its easy as a man to say we sometimes loose control, but think of the woman. Im not trying to be sexist, but men are generally larger and stronger than their female counterparts.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Easy fellas.

I'm not saying I agree with Talkhard (I don't) but I wonder what a woman would say. I have no idea but a reasonable guess might be that she would rather be demeaned physically than demeaned mentally by cheating.

Like I said, I have no idea and I tend to feel that violence is far worse than infidelity but from a woman's POV, I'm not sure it's that universally clear-cut. It's an opinion and there's no reason to have 25 posts telling him he's an idiot.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It sounds like you have a lot of expertise here, but it may be that some people who are less skilled in these affairs than you will just rush into them blindly without the proper preparation.


I'll ignore the low blow, barfo. I'm surprised you would stoop to this. 

The idea that people "rush blindly" into affairs is a myth that they invent to help excuse their behavior. If you think having an extramarital affair is a more spontaneous and unplanned event than hitting your wife in a moment of anger, then we must not be living in the same world.



> Wife beating is never a "temporary loss of control" it's always a reoccuring loss of control.


I love the way things get twisted around in these threads. Hap started out by saying Kidd "hit" his wife. Others took that and ran, calling it "wife beating," and "abuse" and "terrorism." I don't know the details of Kidd's relationship with his wife, and how many times he hit her, but I do know that married people get in heated arguments millions of times a day in this country, and sometimes they lash out at each other. Women also hit men, by the way. It's not a good thing, but I'm also not sure you can call it "abuse," or "beating," or "terrorism." I'm not as inclined to attach politically correct labels to human behavior as some on this board are.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I wonder what a woman would say.

I am a woman. Last time I checked.
IMO, the issue is not whether cheating is "worse" than hitting. THere is no one way all women react. The point is that adultery is not a crime and should not be; it is a private issue between the parties, although if the "cheating" looks, sounds and smells like sexual assault that's a different matter.
Assault is a crime. It is not a private issue, it is not a loss of control. I have a feeling that the men who are justifying it here would be singing a different tune if they were getting the crap beat out of them day after day and being told it was their fault. 
Do you consider it a private matter when Artest charged a fan? DIdn't he just lose it? After all, we all get fed up from time to time. Or is it not OK because he hit a male?


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>crandc</b>!
> I am a woman. Last time I checked.


Well put. Succinct and exactly what I was trying to say.

Bravo.


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Cheating on your wife is not a behavioral issue?


No, it is not. Not in the classic sense of the word "issue".

Having an extramarital affair is normally a symptom of a larger issue within the marriage. While not condoning it, it is also a symptom of male hormones. A male is, biologically speaking, not supposed to be monogamous. This, in no way condones or excuses the behavior, as the male entered into a contract willingly. But, it is hardly an "issue" that need be addressed with the same swift justice that beating another human being does.



> Hitting a spouse during a very emotional argument often indicates a temporary loss of control.


There is no excuse for striking another, unless one's life or physical self is being threatened. You can self-justify all you want, but there is no excusing a loss of control. 

As CRaceC said, "One is a crime, the other is not".


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> > Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> ...


You shouldn't be surprised. By now, you should know there is no depth to which I will not sink. 

But, it was meant purely as a joke. Sorry I failed to include the smiley.



> The idea that people "rush blindly" into affairs is a myth that they invent to help excuse their behavior. If you think having an extramarital affair is a more spontaneous and unplanned event than hitting your wife in a moment of anger, then we must not be living in the same world.


Well, I don't personally have any experience with wife beating, so I can't really participate in the comparison. But I do indeed think that some extramarital sex does happen spontaneously. Now, maybe 'sex' and 'affairs' are two different things, I dunno.



> I love the way things get twisted around in these threads.


Me too!

barfo


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I love the way things get twisted around in these threads. Hap started out by saying Kidd "hit" his wife. Others took that and ran, calling it "wife beating," and "abuse" and "terrorism."


Well, if he did it more than once, which appears to be true, then why shouldn't it be called abuse? What would you call it - "a series of totally normal lapses in control resulting in bodily injury that really isn't that big a deal of you think about it or compare it to devil basketball players yelling at refs"? 

Personally, I think abuse is catchier and more accurate.



> I don't know the details of Kidd's relationship with his wife, and how many times he hit her, but I do know that married people get in heated arguments millions of times a day in this country, and sometimes they lash out at each other.


You sure don't know the details - why are you acting like you do? 

You seem to be living in a mythical world where hitting a woman is a totally acceptable and normal response to stress. In this mythical world, men who are pushed to the limit in ways that can't be their fault have a lapse in control - hit a woman and then don't do it again.

Perhaps you should do some reading on spousal abuse. It is pattern behavior - it's not about anger or stress, it's about control. Men who abuse women, more often than not, do it frequently and escalate to more and more violent and threatening behavior. Perhaps there is a rare case where a man just loses control of his senses and hits a woman and never does it again - but even then, it is despicable behavior. Causing physical violence and fear in the person who loves and trusts you the most is absolutely terrible.

I think you're way off base in trying to argue that adultery is worse. In adultery, feelings surely get hurt - it is undoubtedly a deep betrayal. But at the end of the day, you can choose to move on. There isn't a constant fear that I know of associated with adultery like you would see in a battered wife. 



> I'm not as inclined to attach politically correct labels to human behavior as some on this board are.


Please get the phrase "politically correct" out of your head. It has apparntly scarred you. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to people's feelings - I suggest you try it. 

By defending spousal abuse as some sort of common lapse in judgement and comparing it to sports situations, you run the serious risk of deeply offending someone who has been scarred by a REAL LIFE situation.

If you don't care about that - fine. But don't throw around attitude like - "Oh I'm just not politically correct". It's not an issue of semantics at all. 

At least be real and say that you are being clueless and insensitive about the issue...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> A male is, biologically speaking, not supposed to be monogamous.


Ah, yes, we men are just simple primates, driven by our hormones to do all kinds of crazy irresponsible things. Except if we cannot be expected to be monogomous, how can we be expected not to hit women? Aren't both behaviors the result of too much testosterone?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I didn't take the time to read every post like I should have on this topic, but here's what I think.

Whether your hitting or Cheating you are disrespecting the individual you are doing it to. With either the person being abused being effected mentally or phisicaly..... or both. I think what we all need to ask ourselves is how often does it happen. I mean was this a one time event, or does it happen all the time? I think we've all lost our tempers enough to strike someone or were vulnerable or horny enough to be with someone other than our partners, Some of us have been able to resist temptation, some of us haven't. But to condem someone that has done it is wrong. especially if it isn't an ongoing thing. People do things to other people all the time that aren't very nice. It's the way those people deal with their problems that shows what kind of person they really are.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> ...But to condem someone that has done it is wrong. especially if it isn't an ongoing thing. People do things to other people all the time that aren't very nice. It's the way those people deal with their problems that shows what kind of person they really are.


I agree in principle with this idea, but where do you draw the line? I am not necessarily trying to argue that Jason Kidd is a despicable human being who should be treated like dirt for the rest of his life.

It seems like he had a pattern of behavior that was incredibly deplorable. Hopefully, he has truly addressed that behavior. I think that if he has, he should surely be forgiven - not that I am the one to do it...

However, if we are talking about a situation where someone is beating their wife and doesn't see a problem with that besides the legal consequences... well, I reserve the right to condemn that behavior.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

if I had a buck for every time a Blazer thread evolved into a debate over wife beating, rape or drug abuse, why, I'd buy a ticket to France, perform a mercy killing on an over-the-hill cheese eater, and burn a copy of the ten commandments on my Walmart-purchased hibachi.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Don't forget to send me a postcard Wankaroo...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Well, if he did it more than once, which appears to be true, then why shouldn't it be called abuse?


As I said, I don't know if he hit her more than once. All I know is that Hap said, "Kidd hit his wife." Period. That's what I was responding to. Go back and check the beginning of this thread.



> You seem to be living in a mythical world where hitting a woman is a totally acceptable and normal response to stress.


For God's sake, get off your high horse. I said nothing of the kind. If you look, you'll see that I said a wife or husband hitting each other is "not good." No rational adult would ever say that hitting a spouse is a good thing. All I'm saying is that adultery is a much bigger offense against your spouse than hitting is, in my opinion. 

As for you, you seem to be living in a mythical world where nothing could possibly be worse than hitting your wife. Not abandoning her with young children, or giving her the HIV you picked up from a hooker, or getting yourself thrown in jail where you can't provide for your family. NO, none of those things are worse than hitting her in your book, right?


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Ah, yes, we men are just simple primates, driven by our hormones to do all kinds of crazy irresponsible things.


Actually, all humans are driven by their primative instincts, whether you want to admit it or not. The difference between the human animal and most of the rest, is that we rationalize our behavior and contemplate an action with our upper brain functions. 



> Except if we cannot be expected to be monogomous, how can we be expected not to hit women?


Did I not say three or four times that this does not encourage or condone or excuse the behavior? 

Modern day human studies have proven repeatedly that the male tendency is to trend towards "serial monogomy", at best. 

Again, we separate ourselves from most animals in the wild by our ability to overcome and rationalize our biological tendencies. 

Finally, the human species is a sexual animal (as are all mammals). The same cannot be said of most types of creatures, but that is what is unique in mammals. Our sexuality. Comparing violence to sexuality is an effort in futility.



> Aren't both behaviors the result of too much testosterone?


No, not really. Study testosterone. While it has the tendency to make one more aggressive, it is not the only contributing factor.

Again, none of this condones or excuses either behavior, but to say that adultery is worse than physical assault is pure nonsense. Adultury is consensual between two adults, and usually symptomatic of a poor relationship. It can damage a person mentally and emotionally, if they let it. Physical assault is usually an unsolicited attack on one's person and is often accompanied with verbal assault. This can lead to physical damage, emotional damage, and mental damage.

As you like to say:

"Yo", you do the math.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Sebastian Telfair?


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

Talkhard,

How is it that you can trash someone for inferring something from what you've said, by saying to them to: _get off your high horse. I said nothing of the kind._

Yet, you can turn around and say:



> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> As for you, you seem to be living in a mythical world where nothing could possibly be worse than hitting your wife. Not abandoning her with young children, or giving her the HIV you picked up from a hooker, or getting yourself thrown in jail where you can't provide for your family. NO, none of those things are worse than hitting her in your book, right?


I'm beginning to think there was something to Playmaker's comment about you.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> As for you, you seem to be living in a mythical world where nothing could possibly be worse than hitting your wife. Not abandoning her with young children, or giving her the HIV you picked up from a hooker, or getting yourself thrown in jail where you can't provide for your family. NO, none of those things are worse than hitting her in your book, right?


I think that a pattern of intimidation, physical violence and emotional abuse is much more destructive than abandonment... call me crazy. Better to just leave than to force people to live in fear.

In my book:

If someone randomly hits their wife once and never does it again, its worse than if someone randomly cheats on their wife and never does it again. A > B.

If someone has a pattern of intimidating and brutalizing their spouses, it is worse than if someone has a pattern of infidelity. C > D.

What you seem to be arguing is that D > A, which is certainly more arguable but why compare pattern behavior of one crime to non-pattern behavior of another crime. It's not a fair comparison. 

Both infidelity and spousal abuse have serious trends of pattern behavior. Do you really think that a man who regularly brutalizes his wife is less despicable than one who cheats? 

Adultery is ****ty, but worse than beating the snot out of the person you love? I just don't understand that.


----------



## NastyOne (Nov 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> I thought this thread was supposed to be about Sebastian Telfair?


Yeah, well, things changed when someone said something stupid, I guess.

Besides, how many threads do that? This thread would be on page 3 by now if someone didn't say something ignorant.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

let's try to get this argument back on track....

The argument should not be "Beating or Cheating: Which one is worse?"

The argument SHOULD be "why are we even considering a player with a criminal record? I thought we were getting AWAY from this kind of athlete?"

Yes, Ruben Patterson has a criminal record. He was also added in the Whitsitt era. Nash has TRIED to get rid of him. A lot of fans respect Ruben for his hard work. That's fine. 

The point is, we shouldn't be adding ANY MORE players of that kind of moral standing. 

Period.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> I thought this thread was supposed to be about Sebastian Telfair?





> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> let's try to get this argument back on track....
> 
> The argument should not be "Beating or Cheating: Which one is worse?"
> ...


I agree with Nate. There is no way we should have that wife-beating, kid abandoning, hooker-HIV giving, jailbird Telfair on our team. He's poison.

barfo


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, we men are just simple primates, driven by our hormones to do all kinds of crazy irresponsible things. Except if we cannot be expected to be monogomous, how can we be expected not to hit women? Aren't both behaviors the result of too much testosterone?


No. Male animals try to mate as often as possible with as many partners as possible to increase their chance of passing on their genes. Females often mate with multiple partners as well, for a variety of reasons. True monogamy in the animal kingdom is rare. Even species (especially among birds) that we've traditionally thought of as monogamous turn out to be sneaky cheaters.

So biologically, testosterone is not the driving force behind cheating.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

So is Sebastian Telfair cheating on his wife? Or beating her? I didn't even know he was married!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Male animals try to mate as often as possible with as many partners as possible to increase their chance of passing on their genes

No. If males mate with numerous females (not partners in general, male/male and female/female mating is very common in the animal world but does not directly "pass on genes") a result may be passing on their genes but that is not why they do it. 
In fact, in many species the female "plays around" as much as the male. Often biologists, with male bias, assumed the "promiscuous", for lack of a better word, animals were male because that was their preconceived assumption and that got written into the textbooks...then someone looked a little closer.:grinning: 

From Telfair to wife beating to biology...


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Tlong,

I don't know what Barfo was talking about. I think he was kidding...

But I was talking about Jason Kidd.

Sidenote: I don't believe Telfair is married. I don't believe he has any kids... I'm not even sure he has a girlfriend.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

:topic:

I still think we need to play Telfair more.. he and Outlaw just look to comfortable together out there. Its like they read each others mind. I bet they do well in practice against the starters

As I have maintained.... we need to keep both of them


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>crandc</b>!
> 
> No. If males mate with numerous females (not partners in general, male/male and female/female mating is very common in the animal world but does not directly "pass on genes") a result may be passing on their genes but that is not why they do it.
> In fact, in many species the female "plays around" as much as the male. Often biologists, with male bias, assumed the "promiscuous", for lack of a better word, animals were male because that was their preconceived assumption and that got written into the textbooks...then someone looked a little closer.:grinning:


My point was to refute TH's statement that testosterone drives polygamy (or cheating). That's why I pointed out that females cheat, just like males. 

Sure, plenty of animals engage in sexual behavior that doesn't result in offspring (like those sexy Bonobos), or play mate, etc, but when you're talking about mating strategies, the biological reason that males mate with as many partners as possible is to increase the likehood that their genes are passed on. Females that cheat or have multiple partners, like males, are biologically driven to produce successful offspring that will carry their genes on. An example: a female may mate with several males to create "paternity uncertainty." If it is unclear who the father is, the female may receive additional help (food, protection, baby care, etc..) from more than one male, thereby increasing the chance that their young survives. 

I think the biology male bias has been recognized and discarded. Everyone knows that females are just as loose as the males.


----------

