Kyrie vs. LeBron ... My Take ... What's Your Take?

[Jameis1of1]

Below are my takeaways after watching the very strange interview Kyrie gave to ESPN's "First Take" cast:

1. Kyrie is a very peculiar dude ... not in a bad way, he's just very peculiar.

2. Kyrie is dedicated to being "happy" above all else

3. Kyrie would rather maximize his individual skills than "win" ... I'm not saying this is bad at all

4. LeBron wanted Kyrie traded for Chris Paul after they won the Finals not because he believed CP3 would be better than Kyrie going forward but because he did not want Kyrie to steal any of his thunder in Cleveland ... this is just my personal feeling and I could be 100% wrong ... my belief is sort of akin to my belief that Pete Carrol had Russell Wilson throw rather than BeastMode run in the SB loss to the Patriots simply because he didn't want Marshawn Lynch to win SB MVP as the team was building around Wilson and wanted him to be the star ... I obviously could be 100% wrong on both opinions, but it is the way I see it at this time.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

[halekulani]

1. kyrie believes the earth is flat. enough said.
2 and 3 are very legitimate. i think while he accomplished a championship at a young age, satisfaction of victory is only transient, and he really wants to push the limits to see how great of a basketball player he can become. he recognizes the need to be put in a position of power and he won't ever be in that role playing sidekick to lebron james. i think kyrie loves the game of basketball, and while selfish in nature, i think it's a trait that is exhibited rarely by players that truly love the game. winning itself is not enough; it's about winning on his terms, which is the ultimate satisfaction.
4. cp3 would be an upgrade to kyrie. with kyrie stealing lebron's thunder...i guess, but then again it's a moot point now the warriors have KD. lebron realizes he needs all the help he can get.

[pwaldo]

How does one make an argument for flat earth being real? This is like some internet meme that some people seem to take seriously or something because I'm seeing it everywhere now but what is the justification for this?

[Jameis1of1]

How does one make an argument for flat earth being real? This is like some internet meme that some people seem to take seriously or something because I'm seeing it everywhere now but what is the justification for this?

There is a TON of science behind the flat earth theory and it's definitely not a joke ... there is a ton of info on-line about it to look up but I'm no expert so I won't try to speak for Kyrie

[pwaldo]

There is a TON of science behind the flat earth theory and it's definitely not a joke ... there is a ton of info on-line about it to look up but I'm no expert so I won't try to speak for Kyrie

There is no science behind it. If there was people would state the arguments for it instead of directing people to Youtube videos whenever I ask somebody online about it. Seems like a farming scam to get money off of Youtube views if anything other than a big inside online joke.

[Jameis1of1]

There is no science behindit. If there was people would state the arguments for it instead of directingpeople to Youtube videos whenever I ask somebody online about it. Seems like afarming scam to get money off of Youtube views if anything other than a biginside online joke.

I respectfully disagree entirely. Like I said, I'm not an expert on theissue but I do know for a fact that there are a lot of scientific arguments infavor of a flat earth.

In regards to YouTube videos ... legitimate videos can be on youtube... not everything on youtube is a scam or nonsensical.

Here's a few quick tidbits I dug up in a quick google search:

1. In Brockport, NY, 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flatEarth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending sphericity.Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a flat Earth at the end.The case was reported in the Brockport Democrat.

2. Professor Joseph W. Holden of Maine, a former justice of the peace,gave numerous lectures in New England and lectured on flat Earth theory at theColumbia Exposition in Chicago. His fame stretched to North Carolina where theStatesvill Semi-weekly Landmarkrecorded at his death in 1900: 'We hold to the doctrine that the earth is flatourselves and we regret exceedingly to learn that one of our members is dead'

3. In the early 1900s Edward Haughton, senior moderator in naturalscience at Trinity College, Dublin was a staunch promoter of the scientificFlat Earth theory.

4. In 1909 the University of Toronto Alumni Association published abook by Arthur White titled, "The shape of the earth; some proofs for thespherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-booksexamined, and shown to be unsound."

5. Recently a Ph.D. student presented her doctoral thesis based onproving the earth is flat and it was accepted by two assessors thus passingthrough the first stage of approvals, however when word got out to the largerscientific community they pitched a fit and the paper was rejected.

It seems to me that there was a serious and sincere scientific debategoing on in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as to whether or not theearth is flat or round, yet the way people make it sound today, there hasn'tbeen a debate about this issue for hundreds of years and anyone who thinks theearth is flat is stupid, an idiot, etc ... I'm not a fan of that sort ofrhetoric. I don't believe in shouting people down or demanding people"think" a certain way.

I have no idea if Kyrie is right about the Flat Earth or not but I doknow that there have been serious thinkers, scientists and the like that havebelieved in a Flat Earth from a scientific perspective ... and for all I knowthe theory and the science behind it is every bit as credible and logical asthe theory that man causes global warming or any other "hot button"scientific issue ... and infinitely more credible and logical than macro-evolutionwhich is widely accepted despite there not being a shred of evidence for it.

[Nostalgykone]

There is a TON of science behind the flat earth theory

Eh, pseudo-science. The same or similar that the moon is a synthetic structure, and that the universe is merely a hologram (which has a steadier backing), etc. If anything it makes people think, and challenge the conventional. It's better than just saying that Jesus created everything arbitrarily so why ponder or question anything.

[Nostalgykone]

I'm pro-LeBron. He's a great ambassador to the game, and has handled everything admirably all the back to High School. Anyone playing with LeBron has to know there role, and realize that LeBron will always be the best player on any team that he plays for. If you don't like it, leave quietly and honorably.

[Jameis1of1]

Eh, pseudo-science. The same or similar that the moon is a synthetic structure, and that the universe is merely a hologram (which has a steadier backing), etc. If anything it makes people think, and challenge the conventional. It's better than just saying that Jesus created everything arbitrarily so why ponder or question anything.

No, no ... I wasn't talking about pseudo-science or conspiracy theory stuff ... I know some flat earth types lean on that stuff but I think my post above proved that the flat earth vs. spherical earth was a legitimate scientific debate in the early 1900s and yet the way people talk today, they make it sound like only idiots could possibly believe the theory and that no one has believed it for hundreds of years and that simply isn't true ... I'm no scientist and science doesn't even interest me very much so I'm no expert but I have seen on-line debates between flat earthers and others that get into hard math and have all sorts of scientific mumbo jumbo on both sides.

I'm pro-LeBron. He's a great ambassador to the game, and has handled everything admirably all the back to High School. Anyone playing with LeBron has to know there role, and realize that LeBron will always be the best player on any team that he plays for. If you don't like it, leave quietly and honorably.

I agree with you 100% ... I have no problem with Kyrie wanting to be "the man" somewhere else for the sake of his own happiness, but he should be man enough to admit that is why he left and he should be sensible enough to know that he isn't a Kobe level player and will never be on LeBron's level.