I can't believe how much DC is MMA's sweetheart

cormier has a tendency to be violent at staredowns (cummings and jones). Cormier is just as "fake" as jones is.
 
The ONLY good thing that has come out of this is that MMA fans are not racist since they hate and love two black guys.

Only because DC hasn't been a long reigning champion yet. If he does win, and holds the belt for a while, we'll see how much he is loved.
 
Inference from observable data, rather.
But speculation should be familiar ground for Jones' haters. They quite freely speculate about his intentions and motivations.

No matter how you put it it's still speculation. The important part however was that Jones was the instigator here, with DC retaliating. One is undoubtedly worse.
 
No matter how you put it it's still speculation. The important part however was that Jones was the instigator here, with DC retaliating. One is undoubtedly worse.

So? Without speculation this forum wouldn't exist. In fact, without educated guesses, the human race wouldn't either. We rely on our ability to draw comparisons, extrapolate data, and predict future outcomes.

And no, the severity of the actions determine which is worse. If I gently slap you, and you shoot me, which is worse? (And before any tards start complaining that I'm comparing a push to being shot; no, I'm illustrating a point with an exaggerated analogy).
But that's not even relevant, because my argument wasn't about who was more in the wrong, mr Goalpostmover.
 
Last edited:
So? Without speculation this forum wouldn't exist. In fact, without educated guesses, the human race wouldn't either. We rely on our ability to draw comparisons, extrapolate data, and predict future outcomes.

And no, the severity of the actions determine which is worse. If I gently slap you, and you shoot me, which is worse? (And before any tards start complaining that I'm comparing a push to being shot; no, I'm illustrating a point with an exaggerated analogy).
But that's not even relevant, because my argument wasn't about who was more in the wrong, mr Goalpostmover.

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying it's not a given. It really isn't - if DC would start with 'hey pussy, you still there' after apologizing, I'm quite sure people would call him fake and whatnot.

Yeah - obviously. However, that's not really the case here, so I find that analogy to be rather otiose. If two actions are of the same or similar magnitude, then the instigator is in the wrong. That was my point. We never really took seriousness of the action into consideration here since it quite frankly is irrelevant, no? Insult countered with an insult.

It's actually quite amusing that you'd call me 'goalpostmover', considering what you originally responded to was me saying 'Jones was the instigator, DC the retaliator. The former is worse'. The fact that you try to turn the argument into speculation about whether DC would get crucified or not if he was the one that instigated should make you this 'Mr.Goalpostmover' if anyone. I'm not moving any goalposts, I'm simply stating that my argument from the start was what I previously brought up in this very paragraph.

Either way I feel like this argument is getting very petty and /r/iamverysmart-ish, so I'm going to take the liberty of exiting. If you'd like, feel free to pounce on that like you did when you felt I was changing course previously, with the whole 'goalpostmover'-thingy (which, if I may repeat myself, I really did not). Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying it's not a given. It really isn't - if DC would start with 'hey pussy, you still there' after apologizing, I'm quite sure people would call him fake and whatnot.

Yeah - obviously. However, that's not really the case here, so I find that analogy to be rather otiose. If two actions are of the same or similar magnitude, then the instigator is in the wrong. That was my point. We never really took seriousness of the action into consideration here since it quite frankly is irrelevant, no? Insult countered with an insult.

It's actually quite amusing that you'd call me 'goalpostmover', considering what you originally responded to was me saying 'Jones was the instigator, DC the retaliator. The former is worse'. The fact that you try to turn the argument into speculation about whether DC would get crucified or not if he was the one that instigated should make you this 'Mr.Goalpostmover' if anyone. I'm not moving any goalposts, I'm simply stating that my argument from the start was what I previously brought up in this very paragraph.

Either way I feel like this argument is getting very petty and /r/iamverysmart-ish, so I'm going to take the liberty of exiting. If you'd like, feel free to pounce on that like you did when you felt I was changing course previously, with the whole 'goalpostmover'-thingy (which, if I may repeat myself, I really did not). Thank you.

Actually, that's not how that works. I made a separate point (which I felt was more salient), and initiated a conversation. We'd need to already have an established conversation going for anyone to move anything. And why would you bow out just when it's starting to get interesting? I think you might be projecting or be burned out, because there was really not very much in the way of pettiness here (the tard remark was not aimed at you). Some light ribbing is however to be expected.
So, yes, I will continue. :)

Now, you might not see as well on your side of the fence, but from here in the middle, it's painfully obvious that the Jones hate is waay out of proportion, and was from the beginning. If Cormier initiated it, people would most likely just feel it served Jon right, and defend Cormier tooth and nail.

No, head bumping vs pushing someone in the throat, or calling someone a pussy vs saying you would spit in their face, is not at all similar in magnitude. One is a bit douchey/show of dominance, the other one is very aggressive/confrontational or even hateful. Obviously Jon escalated the situation even more, but I'm not defending anything he did.
 
That's just his way of saying that he would hurt him very badly. He obviously doesn't mean he'd actually kill him, you'd be autistic to believe that. Cormier on the other hand sounds very specific and genuine when he says that he would spit in Jones' face. I would not expect better from a guy who assaults people outside the ring, throws shoes at them and want to spit in their faces just for being called the p-word.

" you know I would kill you if you did that... I mean literally kill you."
 
Actually, that's not how that works. I made a separate point (which I felt was more salient), and initiated a conversation. We'd need to already have an established conversation going for anyone to move anything. And why would you bow out just when it's starting to get interesting? I think you might be projecting or be burned out, because there was really not very much in the way of pettiness here (the tard remark was not aimed at you). Some light ribbing is however to be expected.
So, yes, I will continue. :)

Now, you might not see as well on your side of the fence, but from here in the middle, it's painfully obvious that the Jones hate is waay out of proportion, and was from the beginning. If Cormier initiated it, people would most likely just feel it served Jon right, and defend Cormier tooth and nail.

No, head bumping vs pushing someone in the throat, or calling someone a pussy vs saying you would spit in their face, is not at all similar in magnitude. One is a bit douchey/show of dominance, the other one is very aggressive/confrontational or even hateful. Obviously Jon escalated the situation even more, but I'm not defending anything he did.

No, not burned out mate. My last post was pretty tongue in cheeky. "Otiose". :)

I honestly think we won't get much further than 'I don't think he would' countered with variatons of 'Based on my extrapolated data based on observable information I over the years have gathered, I think you're wrong' countered with 'No matter how you put it, it's speculation and I think you're wrong'. With 'petty' I was more referring to the argument itself. It's not really an important one or one that I feel strongly for, it's just a small speculation whether or not DC would get the same treatment. While I don't think he would, I do think he'd get a lot more hate coming his way (compared to what he gets now - not compared to Jon) if he was the one instigating.

And it's the same story both times. Jones initiates, DC takes it up a notch with his retaliation, Jon retaliates and takes it up another notch. Who's worst? I know my answer, but I can't speak for you. One could however argue that DC instigated on the weigh ins, but Jones' retaliaton kicked it up a notch or two there too. I don't think there's any angel in this situation, but one is a tad bit more guilty than the other - at least if you ask me.

I look forward to discuss some other issue with you, cause point still stands - I think it's a petty argument. That doesn't change it's fun to discuss things with you, I too like going /r/iamverysmart sometimes. That's a compliment by the way, however strangely expressed.

Until next time! :wink:
 
Dc has been violent at the staredowns (cummings). Against jones there was consequences
 
Only because DC hasn't been a long reigning champion yet. If he does win, and holds the belt for a while, we'll see how much he is loved.

DC smashes a couple fan favorites, while holding gold and continues to talk with that arrogant, college educated vernacular-

Hell be loathed like Jones and Rashad was.
 
Thas just redicilous!

Mike+Tyson.+Found+this+on+another+site.+If+its+a_02ca0b_4049031.jpg

I literally laughed out loud
 
Well I love DC. He's smart, he's funny, down to earth. He's had a rough time from which he could recover thanks to MMA, and he's got the nice equilibrium between a nice guy persona and an all out fighter.
 
Back
Top