₦airaland Forum

Android17:
LeBron played a handicapped Miami Heats and claimed that was his most difficult ring. Hoohoo. Shannon 'not too sharp' and similar Lebtards were chorusing such a dumb narrative like it is the gospel. When they tell you "LeBron had to win 2 games on his own" I laugh. Without that Kyrie injury, GSW were settling for a sweep. Maybe they don't remember, but Cleveland lost the only game Kyrie played in (and yes Kyrie played 43+ mins - even more than Curry did). Providence allowed Matthew Delly to be moved into the starting line up and he was the one who was turning the series over. Incase people forgot, Bronny had a big game 1 but his team still lost. So the notion that his big numbers was solely what got his team those wins can only be from the archive of someone who watches the back of his TV. Matthew harassed Curry so badly he was turning over the ball 6 more times than usual and GSWs ORB was 10-15 lower than Clevelands. We were getting abused physically. LeBron called them the grit squad. Even when Curry had a decent game 3 he was still very inefficient with negative +/-. Meanwhile Della was having Cleveland highs of +15 and +13 in those 2 games. LeMAO never came close. Yet "he won those 2 games on his own". Iguodala's MVP was not about defending LeBron. That was just lazy analysis (Lebron's numbers barely shifted). Iggy was inserted to that starting line up to frustrate Matthew. That was what opened the series for GSW and it was blowout after blowout till fade. People who swept the 60 win ATL Hawks in the ECF should stop telling us about Kevin Love. He was injured game 1 of the first round against the Celtics. They did fine without him. I have since shown that Kyrie played full minutes up to OT and his team lost. Cleveland always needed someone to take Curry out - simple. Tyronn Lue who worked with David Blatt took notes and that was his strategy for all the years that Cavs and GSW went at it - even when Kevin Durant was riding Curry's coattail. That same Kevin Durant that had just frizzled a 3-1 lead to a player he is 8 inches taller than and supposedly carried to 2 rings. Stupid things we have to read here from not too sharp people.

Your map of the world is not the only map in the world. There are 7.9 billion other maps. Quit talking down on people and show some respect boy!

Lebron saying his Bubble ring was his most difficult ring was not necessarily because of the Heats. The emotional torture and existential fear of the year's corona pandemic and the stressful conditions of the Bubble itself and how all these affected him and stretched him to his limits as an athlete was what he was referring to.

Saying Iggy's MVP was not because he defended Lebron well is a blatant lie. Without Iggy shutting down Lebron in that series nobody would have awarded him any MVP, take that to the bank.

Your other points remind me of the recent Messi and Ronaldo fanboys ballon d'or argument - pure bias points against the one you 'hate'. Just emotions.

@OP, don't do it. Think of the pain and misery and shame and opprobrium your dying this way will cause your loved ones

No matter what you are going through there could be a solution out there. Just hang in there. May you receive supernaturally the strength and might and courage you need to overcome this night.

Best wishes

Datboredberry:
I'll wait till 2am... Then, may I continue?

You have a disturbed and warped mind veiled with intelligence.

etidy:
I disagree with this biased media driven narrative. After 4 or more rings, 4 finals MVP and 6 years with the warriors. This whole narrative would have died.

The solution to criticism is winning, winning enough and people will forget how you won.

Well, I respect and defend your right to that opinion. It wasn't just the media though. Many NBA fans, emphasis on many, felt that way about those KD's rings and called him unprintable names. Even this thread has scars of battles fought on that score.

Draymond Green, his own team mate and team's vocal leader, had to spell it out for him in black and white in case he was impervious to the mounting disrespect to his name. "It's Steph's team. It's our team. We built this shit. You hopped into our team to get your damn rings." Do you realize the implication of this paragraph alone to his legacy? Read it again. Slowly.

Even KD himself said so himself, that he felt like an outsider, like he didn't belong there. Interpretation: it wasn't his team.

So I still stand on my own opinion. No matter how many rings he won with the Warriors he would still suffer the very same disrespect. He realized this and left the team, first emotionally, then later physically.

etidy:
In retrospect if Durant doesn't get a ring with the Nets , he will deeply regret leaving the warriors.

Imagine leaving a reliable, welcoming, unselfish MVP level player like Steph curry for a crackhead who is now threatening to waste one of the remaining peak years of your career all because of his personal stubbornness.
Curry is the exact opposite of Kyrie character wise. i suppose KD likes Chaos

I disagree. The Warriors was and will always be Steph's team. The media knew this. KD knew this. No matter how many rings he won with the Warriors, he knew he would never get his due respect in this league except he leaves the Warriors bandwagon and builds plus leads his own team.

PS: Respect is hard to get in this league. Even Lebron, after he got his Bubble ring, had to demand for one, " Give me my damn respect!," e get why.

It cuts both ways, madam. Most men can't handle the imbalance. Most women can't handle it either. They were cultured with a paternalistic programming, remember? So she begins to act all masculine around the home and most men are driven crazy by that shit.

"Why can't she still exhibit those attractive feminine energy that drew me to her in the first place", they ask?

Roland17:
Your responses prove you may not have any experience with dealing with kids who suffer or have suffered bullying. Your analogies in comparison to responses are far off apart. First, you misconstrue scenarios using "Big" kid, hopefully, you have leaned that there is no such thing as "Big" or "Small" kid when you are dealing with issues like bullying. A child that brings a gun to gun down 10 people after repeated bullying proves a failure in the system, not the victim. The victim will suffer the consequences of the mass shooting but I can assure you that the entire system that contributed to that failure will pay for it.

I am debating this analogy deviating from the adults and that is why your analogies do not match. Children/ young people have brought guns to school for lesser issues, worth more a situation where they are retaliating the emotional/ mental torture associated with bullying. It is similar to blaming a rape victim because you could not keep your hands and private part to yourself because she wear mini-skirt pass you. Suddenly the person that has been raped is at fault and is being blamed. This is sick bro!

The definition of overboard is not yours to define because you are not the victim of the emotional and mental torture associated with bullying. We have many adults whose lives have been derailed because they were victims of bullies, physical violence and rape. Hold the bullies accountable! Hold the system that allows bullies to thrive accountable. The victims of bullies, rape and violence have a respectable right to defend themselves. Please be careful when you use analogies especially when they have to do with kids.

Guy bone this your talk. The analogy was to bring out the folly in Shaq and Chuck hyping and glorifying immoderate retaliation on national TV when kids are watching and could pick the wrong values.

On that episode clips of Shaq and Chuck viciously mowing down their victim in a basketball game were being shown and they were glorifying it to show their support for fellow big man Jokic.

Kids are watching. What are we teaching them? That excessive retaliation is okay?

In my analogy, the big kid I used there represents Chuck and Shaq and Jokic.

The sensible thing is to condemn both the bullying and the culture that seeks to make heroes of immoderate retaliation or mass shooters.

Glorifying excessive retaliation like Shaq and Chuck did would send the wrong message to these kids and to society at large.

That's my last point on this.

Roland17:
This analogy is so wrong in so many ways! First, it infers that because a kid is big, he/she can not suffer bullying. Secondly, it shifts the responsibilities of the result of bullying on the victim instead of the bully! Come on man! The problem is the bully here.. Someone who is notorious for cheap, dirty and dangerous plays! The victim has every right to defend himself. To you, bullying is about the physical act..naaaaaa..Bullying is more about the mental control than the physical act.

If a child has a history of bullying kids or targeting a particular kid, the school is aware, friends are aware, even the family of the bully is aware they are raising a bully. Keep your hands to yourself! It is the safest place it can be. You are not going to get sympathy for trying to bully a big kid who retaliates! He did not create himself, he was not the aggressor and most importantly, the same right you think you have to hit another kid, is the same right the kid has to defend himself! For once, call out the aggressor!

There are appropriate responses to bullying and inappropriate responses. The right response to being taunted or bullied by classmates is not bringing a gun to school and mauling them down. A child should be taught how to stand up and defend himself without going overboard. Gunning the person down or doing a mass shooting should be a no no.

steady986:
When people start using too many "what ifs" in an argument you know they don't have any valid argument. "What if he injured his ribs" "what if he fractured his knee" "what if he broke his head". All moot points. If he didn't break his head then he didn't break his head. When he breaks his head then we can talk about how he broke his head.

These are the same people that complain nonstop about how the NBA has gone soft. They tell us how back in the day guys were hacking people. Now someone is playing hard and they're saying " what if he died". It was a dirty play, we get it, but miss me with all this "what ifs". We know a play that has the potential of becoming life-threatening or career-threatening and this was not one of them.

My brother, I just tire for some argument here!

Most of us argue emotionally. Our heart decides who we like and what we do and our head conjures up all the logic it can to defend that position and make our decision appear sane.

We get it Jokic is likable, Markieff is not but can we be a bit objective?

A40:
Stop making malaria analogies. When you're in the heat of battle there is no telling how you respond. The ideal situation is for the initial offender not to try you in the first place. What's the correlation between taunting and mass shooting as revenge. Stop dealing in extremes to make jejune argument

What was sportsmanlike about the initial foul? Or is the victim the only one allowed to show emotional intelligence? There is a reason there are self defense laws so dead this agenda

That is why emotional intelligence or control is taught these stars and taught in all endeavours.

Why the over celebration of Jokic's immoderate retaliation? Since when did two wrongs make a right? Why not call the two out?

There is a reason those convicted of manslaughter go to prison. You were provoked but you are still responsible for your actions.

birdman:
But these are not kids. This is a grown man's game. When you hit Jokic the way Morris did, you are sending a message. Jokic showed emotional intelligence imo. He could have clocked Morris with a punch to the temple. Or body slammed him. Otherwise you are seen as soft, and folks will test you in the playoffs where you cant afford to miss any games.

Speaking of kids, same thing. Yes, you should report things to the teacher instead of taking the law into your own hands. De-escalate if you can. But if they corner you and are about to inflict damage on you, game on. Do what you need to to get out of it. Then be the frst to report the whole story to the authorities anyways. Dont just lie down there and eat a beating trying to be emotionally intelligent. There are no rewards for coming home with a broken head. Bullies bully you until you clap back. Such is life.

No sir, he didn't. He did worse. He went hard from behind and made his neck snap. He gave him a neck injury, a whiplash. He could have killed him.

Like I said before I understand why Jokic did what he did but I will not justify it. Jokic went too far, just like the retaliating kid.

Second, I will not go on National TV and glorify and celebrate Jokic's disproportionate violence like Shaq and Chuck did. It is condemnable and is not what the NBA represents.

A big kid gets bulied by a classmate and he comes to class the next day on a shooting spree and kills 10. Intention, retaliation. Shaq and Chuck on National TV: "they got it coming. Don't mess with a big kid," and "if you hit a big kid, if he retaliates, it's all fair because the force is going to be different," literally glorifying the act, extolling violence, gloating even.

I say hogwash!

What happened to the virtue of sportsmanship? What happened to emotional intelligence? Are we not supposed to be trumpeting these?

Does sports analysts and broadcasters not have a code of conduct?

And kids watch these programs. I just wonder what we are teaching them these days.

And we are wondering why society is so decadent.

A40:
Lmaoo killed him?? Like barging into Jokic like that couldn't have broken his ribs and punctured his lungs, His flopping was what led to the Whiplash. I would sympathize with any other player not the Morris brothers, two of the dirtiest players in the league. Literally

Maybe if he apologized like a man instead of turning his back on him like a kitten he would have seen the retaliation coming. Any basketball court in the world if Morris tried that he would get knocked out whether he faced him or turned his back

I disagree, bro. How can he flop without knowing what was coming behind? It was the weight of the big man(Jokic) + the force of the push + the fact that it was unexpected (so he didn't brace himself to absorb the impact) that caused the whiplash.

Look at the pictures below and tell me it was flopping.

Markieff gave him a hard foul. Thumbs down Kieff. Is the punishment for a hard foul death? Jokic could have given him a serious neck injury or worse killed him. His head snapped back: a whiplash can lead to serious complications.

Reaction >>>>> Action.

I understand Jokic's intention though, he wanted to send a message to the NBA.

Fair enough punishment by the NBA in my opinion.

Let me help you psychoanalyze.

Which of your parents was physically abusive to you during childhood? Which of your parents does your wife remind you of?

You may have married 'one of your parents', psychologically speaking. It's why I advise friends to treat and resolve traumas and baggages before getting married. Unresolved traumas lead to a lot of irrationalities in a marriage.

Go for therapy.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Christianity does not provide you a way of "accessing the spirit". Please try to speak only of that which you are indeed knowledgeable of.

Bye sis.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Christianity does not provide you a way of "accessing the spirit". Please try to speak only of that which you are indeed knowledgeable of.

I wrote accessing the spiritual realm.

Whether it is the power of the God or demonic powers or forces of darkness they are all accessed through the spiritual realm.

Babalawo does some incantations to access the spiritual realm and summon spirits, a man of God prays to access the spiritual realm and get God to help him.

Babalawo kills a chicken or goat for sacrifice and uses its blood for the ritual, Christ the lamb of of God was slain and his blood shed as a sacrifice for our sins so we can access God since our sins are now forgiven.

If you cannot see the similarities in how the spiritual realm is accessed in both cases then I cannot help you.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Christianity does not provide you a way of "accessing the spirit". Please try to speak only of that which you are indeed knowledgeable of.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:24

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:14

I would have engaged you deeper than this but obviously you are not a spiritual person.

Kobojunkie:
Paganism is not Christianity and Christianity is not Paganism. Hence the intelligent reason why I asked the commenter to leave the Christian God out of her pagan leanings.

That aside, I have no idea what this response you cobbled up there has to do with any of what I said.

Paganism and Christianity: They are all ways of accessing the spirit realm to gain some form of advantage.

A diabolic pagan for example can go to a babalawo and get charms to collect virtues from women or men spiritually. The victim can go to a deliverance minister who then accesses the spiritual realm for the power of God to reclaim or restore the stolen virtue.

You see how they are both related and how this concerns God?

Kobojunkie:
Did God tell you that anything can be taken from anyone by another human? Stop bringing God into things that have nothing to do with God.

If paganism is why you subscribe to, that's fine, but try to leave God out of it.

Intelligent nonsense! You speak of something you know nothing about. Whether it's paganism, Christianity or spirituality of any sort, men have for thousands of ages been accessing the spiritual realm to try to gain some form of advantage over others or over situations.

Khanben:
Generational talents are very high tier number 1 option

Not necessarily so. Talent and leadership are two different things.

You can have insane talents but can't lead a team. Example, Kyrie.

steady986:
Una dey give this generational talent unnecessary definition sha. Generational talent is simply what it means - generational talent. Meaning talent that doesn't come by easily. It means talent that we don't see regularly. Generational talent doesn't mean someone that can lead a franchise, neither does it me number 1 option. There are countless number one options and franchise players that are not generational talents.

Thanks Steady. See eh, the key to this debate is Kyrie. Is kyrie a generational talent? Yes. Is Kyrie a number 1? No.

Khanben:
The argument is based on generational talent not great shooting. You said that because Klay is second best shooter of all time, that equates to him being a generational talent. Steph is a generational talent not because he can just shoot but became is a bona-fide top tier number 1 option. You are the first person I have ever heard who equates a generational talent as one who is exceptional at just one skill.
Klay is a great shooter, but calling him a generational talent is watering down the term.
Is Rodman a generational talent because he is the greatest rebounder of all time?

I think Klay is being underrated and disrespected in this league. I don't want to dabble into this generational talent argument but boy! Klay is both an awesome shooter and a great defender. He has ticked all the boxes. The only question still remaining is if he can be a successful number 1.

And yes, only Klay can answer that.

Streamz:
I met some cool nairalanders.
Some very good people are out there.

Good to hear that. We need such news from time to time as it renews our faith in humanity. Best wishes

Streamz:
Damnnn, I posted shiiit like this some weeks ago.

How did it pan out for you?