Reply With Quote
They're a lost cause on the subject. It's over, we've made our point, and a respected QB who is a product of the model QB they respect, agrees with usThey can no longer latch on to the Rice debate, it's a wrap.
yeah lortab/norco/vico are all hydrocodone. the difference lies in the dosage of APAP in it.
what else are you guys into? i personally get a buzz from phenergan... even donnatal gives me a buzz.
They're a lost cause on the subject. It's over, we've made our point, and a respected QB who is a product of the model QB they respect, agrees with us
Oh, and since November 2012, Wilson is second in passer rating only to Peyton Manning.
low volume has a big reason with that. i doubt wilson would have similar success if he was forced to carry a role as big as a guy like rodgers, brees. before the chiefs game Terrelle Pryror had a higher completion% from the pocket than Aaron Rodgers
if you're gonna talk passer rating then romo is the greatest of all time.
I agreelow volume has a big reason with that. i doubt wilson would have similar success if he was forced to carry a role as big as a guy like rodgers, brees. before the chiefs game Terrelle Pryror had a higher completion% from the pocket than Aaron Rodgers
Phenergan indeed gives you a small buzz, so naturally hospitals are moving away from it and using Zofran more often now. Any Benzo is good...what's funny (and sad) is if I was blindfolded and given one, I could tell you exactly which one it was upon onset
so basically he said wilson sucks..
Appeal to authority isn't necessarily a logical fallacy unless you are asking the wrong authority. Asking Kurt Warner about quarterbacking is fine IMO. Asking him about evolution would be an appeal to authority fallacy
Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting Warner is a talent evaluator or gm. But about quarterbacking of development as a passer? Sure why not.
Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting Warner is a talent evaluator or gm. But about quarterbacking of development as a passer? Sure why not.
Since we had to assume MJ knows more than anyone else (even though there was no evidence he did) until proven otherwise, when exactly did MJ prove he didn't know more than anyone else? When he picked Kwame Brown? Adam Morrison? Somewhere in between? Be specific as I'm curious what the criteria is.
Saying "Well Kurt Warner certainly knows more than anyone on this forum" is precisely what an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/e...fallacies.html
- Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.
For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?"
Crofl. I'm not pointing to the argument and saying "it's correct on the grounds that kurt warner said it." He made some points which you didn't refute. All you tried to do was discredit Warner completely because he's a jeebo . If you actually addressed his points and brought a valid reason to dismiss them, and I followed that by saying "ur wrong Kurt Warner is smarter" then it would be a fallacy.
Since we had to assume MJ knows more than anyone else (even though there was no evidence he did) until proven otherwise, when exactly did MJ prove he didn't know more than anyone else? When he picked Kwame Brown? Adam Morrison? Somewhere in between? Be specific as I'm curious what the criteria is.
Saying "Well Kurt Warner certainly knows more than anyone on this forum" is precisely what an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/e...fallacies.html
Why don't you address the argument instead of scratching and clawing just looking for a loophole to get out of it
This is precisely what Spurs-Addict did right here:
"Kurt Warner said it, it's a wrap!"They're a lost cause on the subject. It's over, we've made our point, and a respected QB who is a product of the model QB they respect, agrees with us
You then proceeded to claim that wasn't a logical fallacy. Are you now admitting Spur-Addict did employ a logical fallacy?
What points did he make exactly and how did he back them up? Be specific.
The burden of proof doesn't rest on me to discredit the opinion. The fact Kurt Warner has the opinion doesn't automatically give it credit.
Why does the burden of proof rest on me to dismiss the point? Because Kurt Warner said it?If you actually addressed his points and brought a valid reason to dismiss them, and I followed that by saying "ur wrong Kurt Warner is smarter" then it would be a fallacy.
"ur wrong Kurt Warner is smarter" is also essentially what you did right in here
I'm driving home but
hospitals are shying away from phenergan too because of its extrapyramidal side effects. i slammed some on a guy the other day and he tried running out of the hospital lol. but in any event, you have a gift. we should hang out and enjoy a benzo/booze party lol.Phenergan indeed gives you a small buzz, so naturally hospitals are moving away from it and using Zofran more often now. Any Benzo is good...what's funny (and sad) is if I was blindfolded and given one, I could tell you exactly which one it was upon onset
dont feel like making separate quotes....This is precisely what Spurs-Addict did right here:
"Kurt Warner said it, it's a wrap!"
You then proceeded to claim that wasn't a logical fallacy. Are you now admitting Spur-Addict did employ a logical fallacy?
What points did he make exactly and how did he back them up? Be specific.
The burden of proof doesn't rest on me to discredit the opinion. The fact Kurt Warner has the opinion doesn't automatically give it credit.
Why does the burden of proof rest on me to dismiss the point? Because Kurt Warner said it?
"ur wrong Kurt Warner is smarter" is also essentially what you did right in here
a) Nobody, neither me nor Spursaddict, said "this is right because Kurt Warner said so." he just posted a quote from kurt warner about the topic of russell wilson
b) Again, nobody said "it's a wrap" or made it seem like Kurt Warner's quote was an end-all-be-all judgement. you sir, are talking straight of your your ass
c) Points that Kurt Warner made: Wilson's offensive line is struggling, which forces him to move around since there isn't enough time for the receivers to get into position to make a play. This is supported by the fact that their 2 tackles are hurt and their center missed 1 (or i think 2) game(s). Warner also brought up the fact that Seahawk receivers are struggling to gain separation, which means Wilson needs to decide between throwing into tight coverage or taking off with it. Combine the OL and the WR problems, and you have a guy who's true passing skill might not be reflected in the numbers
d) Just because Kurt Warner said it doesn't mean its true. I fully recognize that. But he's a guy that made an argument and brought up points. They should still be addressed if you are going to take the position that Wilson isn't all that good. Attacking him ad hominum saying "oh his opinion sucks because he's a creationist" is re ed and a fallacy on your own behalf. Discredit the arguments. Not the guy arguing.
e) Saying Kurt Warner knows more about quarterbacking than we do (which is probably true) doesn't mean he is 100% right evaluating Wilson. I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth. He's a guy that has played the position and made a case. Regardless of his credibility in your eyes, if he is so wrong on this issue, you should be able to explain it by trying to show me why his points are incorrect or how misguided his arguments are.
Y'all are arguing about the dumbest tbh. It was a good discussion until the fallacy Kurt Warner came into play imo
blame ur boy dok for that one. he'll climb any mountain, cross any river to avoid giving Wilson a shred of props
Last edited by spurraider21; 10-18-2013 at 12:03 AM.
Russell Wilson has won more games than either Luck or RGIII, he has won a playoff game, he has thrown for more td's.
I never said Warner is an expert. I said, a model of the type of QB a lot of people deep throat on this forum agrees with my argument, and presents a lot of the same points. Saying someone is respected, is not calling them an expert, or even an authority. Someone is reaching. There's a difference there. It's a good thing his argument was disputed and disproved LOLThey're a lost cause on the subject. It's over, we've made our point, and a respected QB who is a product of the model QB they respect, agrees with us
I never said, "Kurt Warner is an expert who agrees with me THEREFORE I am correct". And I never said Warner's points on their own is enough to win the debate. I said, we've made our point, and a Gunslinger happens to agree. It's over.
Also, Lynch carried the Seahawk offense to victory VS the Cardinals last night, did you guys see that? Poor game manager Wilson didn't bring the goods. I don't have to argue for Wilson, he does it on his own.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy only if there is no dispute amongst the authorities. Generally speaking when judging an argument if there is mostly a consensus such as is the case in the climate debate then you can ignore the severe minority but of course you do not have to. If the authorities dispute amongst themselves then at the end of the day you can not logically induce that the claim to be true.
In the case of football where there are 30 opinions on pretty much every topic appealing to authority is pretty worthless. The only thing safe at that point is the most conventional of conventional like turnovers are key or a pass rush is important. When you get into how to execute specific techniques then you can make such inductions. Generalizations are typically worthless. There is too much divergence when you look at specifics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
