Now the difference between what I said and what you said is quite clear. Let me explain. Kobe is the most talked about NBA player since Jordan. Fans really dont know much about him, so thats why they should read what he has to say and try to understand his perspective. Once you do read it, you will learn his desire to win and if you have any background knowledge of kobe, you would know how hard he does work on his game. If you can't respect that, you can't be a true fan of the game. I'm not saying you have to be a fan of his, I personally don't like him and am not a fan of him. But i do appreciate his game and respect him.
you know what? okay lets do this then.
So, first of all, you are saying that alll people who are talked about are people who's views we should try to understand. Okay, but it doesnt mean I neccessarily need to respect it. Is it safe for me to say Hitler was talked about, how about Hussein, even Bush, hell if you want an nba example, artest, rodman. Its a good and impartial thing to try to understand their perspectives, but not a neccessity to respect them because they are talked about.
Then you say that people who are true fans of the nba are people who respect people who have a desire to win and play hard. I don't disagree, but how exactly do you measure desire? from a couple of sentences written on a piece of paper? by the look in kobe's eyes? What is your empirical evidence that kobe works harder than isiah rider? What is your empirical evidence that kobe has more desire than isiah? Its quite possible that isiah has equal desire in both respects to kobe, but an even greater desire to be crazy. How about someone like Mike Tyson who has a desire to win and plays hard, should i disregard all else, and blindly respect him?
Then you make the premise that people who dont personally like a person who is good at what they do should nonetheless respect them. What about a person who is good at commiting suicide, should i respect him?
Now, I know you will say that I am generalizing your argument, but considering your argument is deductive it relies on a global sufficiency. In order for it to be a valid, impartial argument, all premises it presumes must be valid.
Now, why do I think the article is hogwash? because the entire thing is stating the obvious, I don't want to know the obvious... its obvious. And when its not stating the obvious, its making an appeal to the readers emotion to help pat bryant on the back. Why do people hate it when bush talks? Because its so obvious he is meandering over anything that actually matters to absolutely the same point he started at; he talks so much, but says nothing. This is what this article is to me. I have desire. Okay, cool. I have desire. Uh huh. I have desire. Get the fuck over yourself. Then he goes to tell us his sob story which, suprise surprise, is actually a learning experience that turns into rainbows and faeries and umpa lumpas, oh my.
the whole thing is basically akin to a scripted answers to a cliche question taught at interviewer school 101: "what do you think your greatest flaw is".... "oooh, i don't know, I'm a perfectionist." Give me a break. Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that this is an honest article, but its an honest article written to an adoring crowd. It tells and does not ask anything of itself.
There is absolutely nothing of consequence here worth my admiring or respect; kobe is a basketball player, nothing more, he is no authority on adversity, he is no authority on desire. He's a professional sports player, and a damn good one, thats it. This whole article is his opinion drawn from completely inductive bias reasons. I respect his opinion in respect to the playing of basketball on the court, period.