4/26/2013 1:16 PM
Bistiza needs to take a course on logic so he can realize that most of what he calls "logic," isn't.  His definition seems to be unique on this, too.  Logic is whatever makes sense to him at the moment.

4/26/2013 1:29 PM
I would buy his dictionary if he actually published one.  For comedy purposes.
4/26/2013 1:32 PM
I'll fix this for you.

"Bistiza needs to take a course on logic so he can realize that most of what he calls "logic," isn't.  His definition seems to be unique on this, too.  Logic is whatever can draw a response."

4/26/2013 2:03 PM
How is saying that you're a "master debater" and saying that nobody knows how to use logic except you and declaring victory in your argument NOT trying to get an emotional response and swaying off topic?
 
All I was doing was stating what had happened. By definition, a recap of what's happening in the discussion can't be off topic.

It's not designed to get ANY response, let alone an emotional one.

Honestly, if you get emotional over someone doing nothing more than telling you what's going on, you might want to take a step back from the discussion and deal with your own issues.

Bistiza needs to take a course on logic so he can realize that most of what he calls "logic," isn't.  His definition seems to be unique on this, too.  Logic is whatever makes sense to him at the moment.

 
I've used the term correctly. If you don't think I have, perhaps you need to take a course on logic. Then maybe you'd realize how many fallacies of argument you've tried to use only for me to point many of them out to you and you to ignore it anyway.
4/26/2013 2:22 PM
"By definition..."

REALLLLLLLY?!?!?!?!
4/26/2013 2:25 PM
Why are you allowed to make an argument based on the definition, but I can't?
4/26/2013 3:33 PM
Because "logic", yo.
4/26/2013 7:20 PM
Why are you allowed to make an argument based on the definition, but I can't?
 
I'm only arguing that recapping the information in a topic isn't going off topic.

You were trying to argue from the dictionary, which lists commony accepted definitions of words. That's great, except we weren't debating the commonly accepted definition, as we all agreed what was commonly accepted.  As a result, your argument from the dictionary didn't do anything to help you gain ground.

Where you tried to gain ground was by declaring the commonly accepted definition is somehow the "correct" one, which isn't true unless your goal was to find the commonly accepted definition in the first place. Because of that, it doesn't support an argumentative position held in a debate unless your goal is to show your position is commonly accepted, which once again is not necessarily the same as "correct". 

 
4/26/2013 8:18 PM
Doesn't that depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is?
4/28/2013 3:32 PM
Why does this forum, which has a name that implies it is dealing with realistic topics keeps falling into abstract concepts.

4/28/2013 9:23 PM
How does "Non-Sports" imply anything?
4/28/2013 9:33 PM
I thought it implied that this was a forum about turtles.
4/28/2013 10:29 PM
I meant this specific thread.

Doma and Prop 8.

We never seem to discuss them.
4/29/2013 8:29 AM
We did.  Sometimes threads go off tangent.
4/29/2013 8:31 AM
The discussion was near the beginning of the thread, or maybe 100 pages or so ago.

Much of the remainder of the discussion has been my attempt to educate people on how simple logical reasoning says choices dictate sexuality. It hasn't been well-received because many people don't want to admit choices may dictate sexuality, as doing so compromises their ability to defend their other strongly held opinions.

Specifically, if you admit logical reasoning says sexuality is a choice (and it does, regardless of whether you admit it or not), you cannot then attempt to justify that choice by claiming it it somehow not a choice.

It doesn't need justified to begin with, but it is understandable some people would think it does given how much others have attacked those choices for years now. The defense mechanism chosen ("it's not a choice") just doesn't fit with logical reasoning.

Perhaps we should just drop the pretense on both sides. Admit it IS a choice, but defend it by saying it needs no justification. That wouldn't violate logical reasoning and would actually go a long way toward more universal acceptance, but it's a tough road for a while and many people simply want to live in denial rather than travel down it, and I suppose I can't blame them for wanting to avoid a tough situation. Still, that doesn't mean you get to deny logical reasoning.

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.