I struggled to understand your line of logic right now.
People dont intensely dislike or like as book end emotional responses.
There is a spectrum of likability.
Some people (like me) everyone likes. Other people, say, someone that rats his friends out without provocation, is intensely disliked.
Then there are various levels of in between.
Liken it to a seed.
Something happens, could be mild, that fuels discontent, even if the logical mind over rules it.
Perhaps its the Nu Brown incident of him getting dropped.
Then that grows over time, things that are 'tough' is viewed as dictatorship over strict. Authoritarian over intense. That kind of thing. 'Cops are dogs' sort of mentality.
I do not think that Pay has lost the dressing room yet. However he may be spiralling that way if he isnt careful.
This is what happened to Smith, to Martin at Souths in the 90s. I suspect Mick Potter and maybe Jason Taylor amongst others.
back to my example, Stephen Mangongo is a very knowledgeable coach and developed young kids through the system. As a kids coach, he is second to none, but for adults, he cant reconcile the hard approach to man management. Despite some on field success in 2014, after the ball grabbing incident he lost the dressing Room and sent Brendan Taylor to Hampshire.
When you are Zimbabwe, you cant afford to lose the only batsman in your team who's good enough to play for Australia. He will only ever be remembered for that now.
Ok dude,enough screwing around with you,I'll school you on the Fundamental Laws of Logic and Logical fallacies,something you learn in entry level philosophy and Logic at university.
When you use grammar and syntax in a sentence,there are rules you don't violate,one is the 1st Law of logic (the Law of contradiction).The law states: 'you can't arrange a composition of words and phrases with two contradictory words or meanings'.
You used 'revolting' and 'a bit' together,that's a contradiction.Revolting means causing INTENSE disgust,the word intense here infers EXTREME.In formal language,bit means a SMALL piece,a PART.It is only in informal language,like slang or if you're a yobbo,that you use bit to encompass associated actions.
In formal language both words stand at opposite ends of a measurement spectrum (Extreme vs small),thus the contradiction.
I couldn't believe (facepalm),that in your reply you committed eight more fallacies,off the bat you are guilty of 'Straw man argument','Equivocation fallacy' and 'Fallacy of accent'.
You disconnected 'like' and 'intensely' by putting them into two separate sentences,to make your argument! By separating the two words you disqualify your argument from the discussion.
Then you demolish the meaning of revolting,by only using part of it's meaning 'intensely' and then follow with the word disliked.
Why the dishonesty?The degrees of like is not the subject,so don't misrepresent the argument.Maintain the original sentence structure of your 1st post.Use the word revolting (or any tense of the word) with the word disliked (or liked) AFTER it.
I tell you why you omitted revolting,because the grammar and syntax demands will break,thus exposing your inability to construct meaningful sentences!
Now to your conspiracy theory,'that there is discontent and Pay "might,going to,or may" lose the dressing room'.
I suspect unlike yourself,a few on the kennel know the state of affairs at our club,so please don't imply expertise and pretend you know some unstated truism.Your claim is presented without support,you continue your dribble with misleading vividness by trying to equate an occurrence (Nu Brown being dropped) to convince us that there "might,going to,or may" be a problem.Then you escalate this phantom problem from a maybe,to mild,to discontent,to dressing room revolt.Committing a 'correlative-based fallacy' by dreaming some phenomenon as a root cause in a circular cause and consequence.Bro correlation does not always prove causation,a faulty assumption on your part,that there is a correlation between two variables,that team selection can cause revolt.
You continue your tirade and without sufficient information and state how our players might view Pay's actions.Using baseless complete comparisons between tough/strict and dictatorship and intense with authoritarian.Your assumptions make you guilty of 'retrospective determinism',because if Pay's actions occurred under some circumstance it doesn't mean discontent or revolt are not inevitable.It's 'false equivalence' using "Cops are dogs" in the context of dictatorship and authoritarian,why not use "because they break the law","assault people" or "lie under oath",you cherry pick your reasons for the cop's derogatory name.
Smith coached under 23 and reserves at Souths,he left for a 1st grade coaching position at Illawarra Steelers.Martin was sacked by management after a disagreement over inappropriate disciplinary actions to Julian O'Neill.Potter was sacked because he was a poor coach and achieved poor results.Jason Taylor lost his job in similar circumstances to Des,after 3 years,management lost faith in him (or to save their arse),but the players were still behind him.I can't believe your poor attempt in arguing,that because all these coaches share some property (being sacked),you hastily imply that revolt or discontent by players was the cause and through your discourse you try to spin an 'association fallacy'.
Your cricket example is a 'false analogy or dichotomy' and is poorly suited.You are conflating a major embarrassing event that deserves consideration with ambiguity.Your reification,concretism and hypostatization puzzles me.Show me where Pay had such (or the like) real event,you are treating something that is real with a merely hypothesized idea.Why not use 'if Pay farts in the dressing room,the players will revolt',it's just as good.
So please,before you start spreading around multiple inductive fallacies,full of hasty generalization about our great club,come up with some premises first not a conclusion that is not supported (in other words don't talk or make up shit about the Bulldogs).I have no problems if informed observers (or sourced information) presupposes his/her own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event,based on facts.But I do have issues with your 'Kettle Logic' in using jointly inconsistent multiple arguments to propagate a corrosive proposition.You quickly use causal oversimplification to assume that Pay might be heading towards a dressing room problem simple cause of an outcome,when in reality it may be caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes beyond his control.
