Anderson "the Spider" Silva appreciation thread: Still the most incredible highlights EVER in MMA

[315MMAFighter]

LMAO

 

[Levi_]

I disagree. I don't think that they are more likely to be guilty. I think they are more likely to be suspected & caught.

2 guys doing the same thing, but one of them gets caught. This will lead to the likelihood that the one who was caught will probably get caught again. Not necessarily because he is doing anything more or differently than the other. It's because his past guilt leads to more suspicion & more investigation (deservedly so). I can see how people could perceive it your way, though. You are making it seem that your position is fact based, when it is not. It is merely perception. I KNOW people who have engaged in same or similar activities. One is known, the other isn't. The perception about them is different based on that knowledge. However, their actuality is the exact same....unbeknownst to those being led by their perceptions.

It actually is fact based. As I said, there is research to support it, as well as basic logic. Joe Blow was arrested for cocaine. Mike Smith down the street has never been arrested for cocaine. Who is more likely to be a cocaine user now? Pretty silly to say it isn't more likely to be Joe; I wouldn't need any research to know that, but the research does exist.

As a mental health evaluator, I do violence risk assessments. Guess who is most likely to be violent in the future? Those who have had violent crimes in the past. My assessments are valid tests that are research and evidence based. It is a FACT that those arrested for violent crimes have the highest likelihood of having a history of violence; stats will show it.

It's logic AND fact.

 

[Seven30]

It actually is fact based. As I said, there is research to support it, as well as basic logic. Joe Blow was arrested for cocaine. Mike Smith down the street has never been arrested for cocaine. Who is more likely to be a cocaine user now? Pretty silly to say it isn't more likely to be Joe; I wouldn't need any research to know that, but the research does exist.

As a mental health evaluator, I do violence risk assessments. Guess who is most likely to be violent in the future? Those who have had violent crimes in the past. My assessments are valid tests that are research and evidence based. It is a FACT that those arrested for violent crimes have the highest likelihood of having a history of violence; stats will show it.

It's logic AND fact.

It's not fact. It's theory. Using facts to support a theory doesn't change the theory into a fact. Any research is just finding patterns. But it doesn't make anyone predisposed to commit a specific act. Anyone can publish something theoretical.

I've lived in neighborhoods where I watched this play out all the time. My experience trumps anything someone without personal experience theorizes. I don't think those factors impels anyone to do anything. I don't think Joe Blow being arrested makes him more likely to use than Mike. I just think it will be perceived that way because one has been caught. I do think that Joe has more of a likelihood of being caught again due to his prior arrest. But both guys could be doing the same thing, only Joe would have more focus on him, increasing his chances of being caught again.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Levi_]

It's not fact. It's theory. Using facts to support a theory doesn't change the theory into a fact. Any research is just finding patterns. But it doesn't make anyone predisposed to commit a specific act. Anyone can publish something theoretical.

I've lived in neighborhoods where I watched this play out all the time. My experience trumps anything someone without personal experience theorizes. I don't think those factors impels anyone to do anything. I don't think Joe Blow being arrested makes him more likely to use than Mike. I just think it will be perceived that way because one has been caught. I do think that Joe has more of a likelihood of being caught again due to his prior arrest. But both guys could be doing the same thing, only Joe would have more focus on him, increasing his chances of being caught again.

Agree to disagree.

You need to study what terms like theory mean in science, as well as research in general. Your personal experience is called an anecdote, which is pretty much meaningless in the larger picture in comparison to valid research.

 

[Seven30]

You need to study what terms like theory mean in science, as well as research in general. Your personal experience is called an anecdote, which is pretty much meaningless in the larger picture in comparison to valid research.

If "valid research" consists of people who haven't personally experienced what they're philosophizing, spare me. I'm going with real life. From the beginning of the discussion, my position was actuality. I've seen it. Lived it. Why would I listen to anyone who hasn't?

 

[BrazilianDude]

Beautiful violence

His striking was very creative and his GnP was amazing.

 

[007]

Now that I think about it how can I decredit any fighter who test positive? If I do this I have to eliminate any fighter from the Pride days and most from early UFC days. So thank you TS. Silva is GOAT

 

[rorschach51]

I was never a fan of his, but I just rewatched his first UFC fight against Chris Leben (who I was a fan of, and is probably the reason I wasn't a fan) and my god. Silva was amazing, the most fluent striker in the UFC I've ever seen, his footwork use of angles and movement was like nothing else seen in the UFC to that point. Over a decade later (and slightly more mature on my part), with the crippler being retired I can look back and really appreciate just how god damned good Anderson Silva was.