12/24/2012 1:57 AM
It is a logical error.

If you did A to impact B and it didnt work there is no reason to assume it would work if you did it again.
12/24/2012 12:41 PM
If this were a horse race, swamp and bistiza would be neck and neck rounding the final turn, about  30 lengths in front of everybody else.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/24/2012 1:10 PM
You're delusional if you truly believe that your incessant denial of opposing viewpoints, to the point of your "opponents" removing themselves from the discussion out of frustration, can be classified as a "win".


You're in denial and the only question is whether it is purposeful or not.

If it is purposeful, it's not quite so sad, because it means you personally understand you lost the debate but have too much pride to allow me to even suggest it on here without you attacking me and claiming I'm delusional.

If it's not purposeful, then you don't understand how and why you lost because you truly don't believe you did, and that takes true denial there. After all, if you think your position is truly superior, then re-engage me in the debate. You're the won who gave up, not me.
You truly have no self-awareness of how you're perceived.

Oh, I know exactly how I'm perceived by you, and I simply don't care.

The reason is simple: I know you're not objective at all. I know you're frustrated with your inability to defeat me in the debate in question, and your opinion of me stems from that and as a result you will view me in a negative light no matter what.

Even if I cared what you thought of me at one point - and I'm really not here to impress anyone anyway - I certainly don't now because I understand the reasons behind what you think of me for what they are.

In short, you don't take someone's opinion of you seriously when the only reason they feel that way is because they were somehow offended you beat them in a rather meaningless contest, such as the debate we had.

To illustrate, it's like I beat you at seeing how many times we could touch our nose in a minute and you're so angry over it you think I'm the worst person ever. I can't take it seriously because the basis of the opinion is essentially nothing.
Swamp may have the track record, but bistiza is throwing down an avalanche of genuine stupidity.
This is the same situation as tecwrg: Your opinion is essentially meaningless because it is based out of frustration over not being able to defeat me in a logical debate. Re-read the points I made directly above as they apply to you as well.

Basically what it boils down to is this: If your only reason for disliking me is because you can't defeat me in a logical debate, there is no reason for me to care what you think of me, because it's based on nothing more than your ridiculous and childish frustration with the situation, which is basically meaningless.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/24/2012 4:43 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 12/24/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/24/2012 1:57:00 AM (view original):
It is a logical error.

If you did A to impact B and it didnt work there is no reason to assume it would work if you did it again.
I wish you would have told me this before it took me two attempts to start my car.

That aside, that still isn't a logical errror. Try again.

I know this is asking a lot, but leave politics out of it. Try to get a grasp on basic logic before you apply it to any situation.
It wasnt really 2 attempts. It was 1 attempt that involved turning the key twice.

If you tried and tried and the engine didnt start would you assume that it would work the next day?
12/27/2012 10:32 AM
Do you realize that every time you post and proclaim your "victory", you're just reinforcing this

No, I'm just pointing out the facts (which serves to further frustrate those who were already frustrated by their inability to successfully debate me).

If two armies go to war over a piece of land both sides want to claim and one army retreats and hides in the hills and refuses to come out and re-engage in battle while the other takes over that piece of land, the army hiding in the hills has lost. 

It doesn't matter if they shout insults from their hiding places in the hills. It doesn't matter if they yell out that they don't really care about that land anymore and/or they never really did.

The fact of the matter is the other army has taken the land which was in dispute and they are not trying to take it back - that's all that matters.

But according to you, I guess it would be foolish for the army standing on the disputed land to claim victory. They've clearly lost that battle to the guys hiding in the hills. *rolls eyes*
12/27/2012 1:21 PM
yeah, because cyberspace is a tangible place.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/27/2012 7:18 PM
The debate isnt about the actual issue.

The debate is if we can debate.

The left and their scientific allies are quick to make sure not one talks to much about issues that are on the forbidden thoughts list.
12/27/2012 8:18 PM
There is absolutely nothing political about the age of the earth.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/27/2012 9:57 PM
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the earth formed and cooled to the point of becoming habitable, and complex and intelligent life evolved to the point we are at today, in only 10,000 years.

Isn't it?
12/31/2012 3:49 PM
At the risk of making you even more frustrated, tecwrg, I think you're misunderstanding the most common young earth theories.

Most of them don't have the same background foundation as the mainstream old earth theory, so they don't believe what you're suggesting.

For example, many young earth advocates do not believe in macro-evolution, so there isn't any need to try explain how it happened "in only 10,000 years".

This will make you blow a fuse and call me all sorts of names, I'm sure, but you're already aware I'm skeptical of scientific claims for which evidence is there but isn't conclusive - so it shouldn't surprise you to know I'm not sold on the concept of macro-evolution. I don't really believe in the traditional creationist view either. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, or perhaps it is something we have no grasp on right now. My point is I'm non-committal here too.

I don't want to debate macro-evolution now either, so trying to argue about it will be a waste of your time (but perhaps it will be fun for me to watch you go crazy because I don't share your mainstream beliefs).

12/31/2012 4:58 PM
You take pride in your inability to think critically?
of 37

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.