4/22/2013 2:07 PM
In orther words, biz is always right, and anybody who disagrees with him is always wrong.
4/22/2013 2:08 PM
No, you have sec with women because you are straight. Not the other way around.

A lesson on cause and effect:

If you decide to step outside when it is raining and you get wet from the rain, you got wet BECAUSE you stepped outside. The cause is you stepping outside and the effect is you got wet.

If you decide to only be with women in romantic and/or sexual encounters and can therefore be classified as straight, you became straight BECAUSE you are only with women. The cause is you being with women and the effect is you are straight.

While this is fun, if you don't get it now you're either too stupid to discuss it with or you're being deliberately obtuse, which amounts to essentially the same thing.


4/22/2013 2:11 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/22/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):
What seems "logical" to one person may not necesarily seem "logical" to somebody else.  Would you agree?

Absolutely not. That's completely ridiculous.

Logic isn't subjective. In other words, there is no difference in logic from person to person. If it "seems" like there is, at least one of them isn't using logic.

So if you say something is "logical", and somebody else doesn't agree, then the other person is wrong.

Likewise, if somebody else asserts that something is "logical", and you don't agree, then the other person is wrong.

Is that about right?
Sounds logical.
4/22/2013 2:15 PM
If I prefer warm weather, but live in a cold weather climate, I still prefer warm weather.  If there was a word for "preferring warm weather" would you argue that this word didn't apply to me?

Would you argue that the definition of the word was wrong?
4/22/2013 2:15 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/22/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
No, you have sec with women because you are straight. Not the other way around.

A lesson on cause and effect:

If you decide to step outside when it is raining and you get wet from the rain, you got wet BECAUSE you stepped outside. The cause is you stepping outside and the effect is you got wet.

If you decide to only be with women in romantic and/or sexual encounters and can therefore be classified as straight, you became straight BECAUSE you are only with women. The cause is you being with women and the effect is you are straight.

While this is fun, if you don't get it now you're either too stupid to discuss it with or you're being deliberately obtuse, which amounts to essentially the same thing.


You don't become straight. You just are. It's a state of being.

If you decide to be with a women, it's likely that you are straight. But it is possible to be with a woman and be gay.
4/22/2013 2:17 PM
So if you say something is "logical", and somebody else doesn't agree, then the other person is wrong.
A logical conclusion is derived from properly applying logical reasoning, and anyone can (theoretically) do this. In fact, all those who properly apply logical reasoning to any situation should by definition agree on the conclusion, or at least one of them was not properly using logic to begin with.

It has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else personally believe is "right" or "wrong".
Likewise, if somebody else asserts that something is "logical", and you don't agree, then the other person is wrong.
You can't just say something is logical. That's preposterous.

You must demonstrate the application of logical reasoning. So far I'm the only person who has even attempted that in this argument.
In orther words, biz is always right, and anybody who disagrees with him is always wrong.
That's not true, and I've never said it is.

In this case I'm right because logic demonstrates I'm right. I really wish there was someone else in this topic who actually understood how to apply logic.

I guess if that was the case, I'd have validation for the fact that I'm right in this case, but on the other hand the argument would be more boring and straightforward. It's always more fun to argue with people who are stubborn and determined but also illogical and clueless.









4/22/2013 2:22 PM
Like how you apply logic to the age of the earth?
4/22/2013 2:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/22/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Does it say that? Has he only had sex with one woman? No wonder he's so confused about sexuality.
Bis?
4/22/2013 2:37 PM
If I prefer warm weather, but live in a cold weather climate, I still prefer warm weather.

You can't say you're a warm weather dweller despite despite choosing to live in cold weather just because you prefer warm weather. That's the point.
 If there was a word for "preferring warm weather" would you argue that this word didn't apply to me?

No. But I would argue what I just stated above.
You don't become straight. You just are. It's a state of being.

Let's apply your line of reasoning to other situations and see if it is logical:

You don't become a criminal. You just are. It's a state of being. - NO

You don't become afraid heights. You just are. It's a state of being. - NO

You don't become addicted to drugs. You just are. It's a state of being - NO

You don't become a millionaire. You just are. It's a state of being - NO

Four examples of applying your reasoning to other things show it is NOT logical.
If you decide to be with a women, it's likely that you are straight. But it is possible to be with a woman and be gay.
Do you think your status is something completely independent from who you are with? So according to you, I could be gay right now even though I've only ever been with women? And someone else who is a man who has only been with men can be straight?

There's no need for a reason to explain why anyone is what they are - they are just whatever the hell they say they are, for any reason or none at all. Got it.

You're worse than I thought.  Not only do you fail to grasp how your line of reasoning defies logic, but you apparently have no line of reasoning to begin with.

This is fun, but honestly, there's nowhere to go from here if you don't even have a line of reasoning.

Next you'll be saying that you're Batman and the Pope all at once. No reason - you just say so. 

It must feel good inside your head when you think you can say whatever you want and it comes true.

Do you have some sort of magic genie to make that happen? If you do, maybe you should wish for some kind of sense so you can understand simple logic and reasoning.


4/22/2013 2:44 PM
"You can't say you're a warm weather dweller despite despite choosing to live in cold weather just because you prefer warm weather. That's the point."

I didn't say I'm a warm weather dweller.  I said I'm attracted to warm weather.

I didn't say homosexuals have gay sex.  I said they are attracted to the same sex.
4/22/2013 2:45 PM
Define: homosexual

ho·mo·sex·u·al
/?hom?'sekSHo?o?l/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
Noun
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
4/22/2013 2:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/22/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Define: homosexual

ho·mo·sex·u·al
/?hom?'sekSHo?o?l/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
Noun
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
That's obviously not his dictionary.
4/22/2013 2:49 PM
By the way, to make sure I wasn't misquoting biz, I looked up the "whore" conversation.  I was right.  I also found that he had his own definition for "promiscuous" as well.  

So we got the following words with different definitions in biz's dictionary:

homosexual
whore
promiscuous
logic
evidence

What other commonly understood words in the English language do you have different definitions for?
4/22/2013 2:53 PM
I didn't say I'm a warm weather dweller.  I said I'm attracted to warm weather.


Great. So that means you understand that dwelling in warm weather and being attracted to warm weather are two different things.


I didn't say homosexuals have gay sex.  I said they are attracted to the same sex.

Except you can be attracted to the same sex and not be homosexual. Or you could be attracted to the opposite sex and not be heterosexual. Now you're don't know how to define anyone's status.

I guess you're like BL - people are whatever they say they are for whatever reason they want or no reason at all. There's no need for anything to make sense, after all.

Arguing from the dictionary is the same thing as saying "lots of people agree with me", which is not a logical argument. We've already been over that.
4/22/2013 2:54 PM
By the way, to make sure I wasn't misquoting biz, I looked up the "whore" conversation.  I was right.  I also found that he had his own definition for "promiscuous" as well. 


I don't have my own definition for anything. I use a logical definition for words, which in most cases is the commonly accepted definition you'll find in many dictionaries.

Keep making things up in your own head to try to defy logic.

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.