Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Would it be the same ‘logic’ YOU used to conclude that the bible == science?
Emphasis is mine.
Wow. You are really losing it. You must have me confused with one of your other ‘dissenters’. I know it makes it easier for you to just group us all together into one big happy stereotype, but you are mistaken. I’ve never made such a point, conclusion, or argument.
But I understand in may sometimes get confusing for you, trying to keep track of all us ignorant unenlightened types.
I forgive you.
Four data points is a trend
Sure, to be argumentative, you can break it down to more data points, or constrain it to less. Why not throw in all the fouls called against u*nc and duke? And all the fouls not called against their opponents? That way, you can get your ‘data points’ up into the 1,000s.
One could reasonably argue that since UVA had wrapped up the regular season title and the end result already determined, all subsequent data are irrelevant and therefore disqualified from valid ‘data points.’ Therefore, the Wake victory over Duke has no bearing.
No where, has anyone suggested that Swofford picks the winners. What is claimed by many is that he has a bias. A bias that affects the integrity of his job performance.
Although, you might have an argument if you assume that Swofford thinks his job is to protect the blues. In that case, he would be terrible at his job
I never said I did, never said I did not. I never even broached that subject. I do think Swofford is biased. But if he were trying to protect the blues, I believe it is incorrect to assume he is terrible at his job. A proper analysis would need to consider Swofford as a variable. How the blues fair with Swofford against a projected finish without him. Using an extreme example to make my point, if a projected finish has the blues with only 7 ACC wins, then Swofford was indeed successful.
But we all know this is all simply a waste of time. Trying to have an intellectual discussion of varying opinions with you is like trying to discuss astrophysics with a cinder block. That’s a smilie, not a direct name calling.
Your tactics when someone disagrees with you are really getting tired and predictable. You should probably try to branch out a bit.
Here are more.
Or try this one:
About.com:logical fallacy
Definition:
An error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.Yep. Spot on again
Here’s another:
Dictionary.com:logical fallacy
noun
a fallacy in logical argumentationYep. Spot on again
and another:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.htmlA “fallacy” is a mistake, and a “logical” fallacy is a mistake in reasoning.
Yep. Spot on again
Here’s an entire website on logical fallacies:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/What is a Logical Fallacy?
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning.Yep. Spot on again
Would you mind detailing the ‘logic’ you used to reach that conclusion?
I already did, in basic terms. You either understand or you don’t. Though in your case, there’s a third option.
I wasn’t even responding to your conclusion, just to the data and method you used to validate it.
Also, would you mind listing my ‘logical fallacy’?
“logical falacy” is known term. Just because it may reside outside your vocabulary does not make it impermissible for the rest of us to use.
By the way, here’s the logical fallacy you used.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htmNo, its not.
Actually, here it is:
logical fallacy – a fallacy in logical argumentation
fallacy, false belief – a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoningI’d say that’s spot on. Exactly how I used it.
Apologies again, but then I have to ask again… Muffet? Really? Wasn’t that the name of the robotic dog thingy on Battlestar Galactiga?
Edit: Looked it up. That was Moppet. Close though.
I hate it when pessimism is rooted in sound logic with little to counter its conclusions, other than
^^ Addendum:
ACC Bylaws, Article III, section b:
… enforce all rules and regulations of the Conference and of the NCAA.
Fail
Article VIII, Section VIII-1. “Alleged Violations” – too much to quote Fail
Article VIII, Section VIII-2. “Investigations” – too much to quote FailSince Virginia and Syracuse are the 1 & 2 seeds, Duke and Carolina both have loses to Wake Forest, and the previous two champions were Miami and FSU, I think it’s time we retire the ‘blue bias’ pony.
Why? We have to go no further than basic logic to dismiss your reasoning. Basic logic tells us that outliers do not belie a trend and an end result does not disprove the existence of efforts against it.
You’re using a logical fallacy to reach a conclusion, at least in that post.
How do you propose making that happen?
Do you mean ‘how’ or do you mean ‘why’? You ask ‘how?’, you answer ‘why?’
If you mean why?, how about corruption, bias, nepotism (don’t forget about Jr, that move cost the conference million$), and failure to perform job duties?
ACC Manual, Article IX, paragraph 1:
The Commissioner shall ensure adherence to the principles of the Constitution and Bylaws by all members of the Conference.
– Big FAIL. Ensure? Really? More like enable to bypass and provide cover after the fact for certain member(s).
ACC Bylaws, Article III, section c:
c. EQUITY. Implement and advocate the principle of equity
– Big FAIL. Just in the last few years, you think Ga Tech, FSU, and u*nc have all been treated equitably?
“He will want his name in the paper. His name is Jamie Luckie: He was the referee.”
Awesome. Makes his point, while technically, not breaking the rules barring comments on officiating.
I feel like TJ has a legit shot at ACC Player of the Year
The official ACC POY? Considering who votes, I say not a chance.
But the ACC picked Muffet McGraw as it’s coach of the year.
I’ll admit to my ignorance when it comes to the women’s basketball, but Muffet McGraw? Really? I had to look that up. I thought I was missing out on a good joke.
If I was going with nicknames, I don’t think I go with one that could double as a porn alias.
It’s just a game.
I doubt a they look at it that way. I know I wouldn’t think that of ANYTHING that could potentially pay 7 figures + and take care of my family for life.
Considering all that I’ve heard about this particular case, I’m what is really being risked. But even if the risk were substantial, an easy way to convince yourself to jump in is to consider what is risked by active duty military for substantially less.
A nice, unexpected (for several reasons) surprise. As opposed to the expected kind.
Hopefully the issues have been worked out.
“Kills me to see us waste the best NCSU Bball player in 20 yrs on an NIT season.”
Amen.
– Philip and Russell
