5/9/2013 3:12 PM
Actually, when I'm throwing around the word "logic" in reference to you and/or your posts, it's entirely because I'm making fun of you.  Just want to make that clear, so there's no misunderstanding going forward.

So you are saying you're essentially the bully on the playground who doesn't understand the big words the "nerds" are using, but you want to try it.  When they snicker at your lame attempts to sound like you possess half the intelligence they actually use, you'll say you were only doing it to make fun of them because that covers for your own incompetence.

Got it.
I'm guessing that you had not picked up on that previously.
I thought your incompetence was simply incompetence, and it was. Now you're trying to cover for it by saying "I was only making fun of you".  I'm fully aware of what is going on here, although my guess is right about now you wish I wasn't pointing it out.
5/9/2013 3:35 PM
Wrong, on both counts. 

I'm just making fun of you.
5/9/2013 3:39 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/9/2013 3:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/9/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
That was quick. The pages are much easier to read on my phone without 4,000 word essays clogging up the forum.
Words.  I'm speaking words because if I use words like these words that I'm typing now, then it will appear that the words I am typing in word typing fashion would appear wordy, and wordy is good for wordy points in making my point in words.  More words here.  And then more words here.  Words are important, because words words words words words see I'm smart for using words as many words as I can.  Also, if you didn't see the words I typed before, I have more words here.  After this sentence are more words, and now it looks like the words are important words because the words are wordy and that means I'm smart and wordy.  Words are good.  I type more words like these words here and the words following these words because words help me with words and words are good.  After I type these words, I will type more wordy words.  Also, I know I said the words I'm about to say next, but if I say the words again, it will mean I'm more right because words are good.  After I type these words, I will type more wordy words.  In word form.  Lots of words.

New paragraph for more words.  I can make a new paragraph to type more words to say the same words I said before in word form, although I may take the words I used prior to this paragraph and use the words I'm speaking about and in a wordy way to rearrange the words to make the words seem like I'm saying more words but different words in a different way to make a better wordy point in words.  Words are good in this way.  Also I make take words and tell you the words I'm using are different in wordy definition than the words you think they mean.  The words may mean words in different words, but words are wrong than what words you think they are in words.  More words.  Also, words here.  And words here and then more words.

Here are more words in a different paragraph with many words.  I'm saying even more words here and then I'll say more words after this wordy sentences with words inside of the sentence with words, as in this sentence with words inside the wordy sentence with words in it.  Here I'm writing these words.  And with these words you will wonder why the words you're reading are words you've read in the wordy word sentence with words in other wordy sentences in the wordy paragraph with many words in the wordy sentences you've seen words in earlier.  

In conclusion, words.

That is more logical than anything bis has ever posted.
5/9/2013 3:40 PM
5/9/2013 4:15 PM
5/9/2013 4:16 PM
5/9/2013 4:17 PM
5/9/2013 5:02 PM
Posted by bistiza on 5/9/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
I don't agree that it's silly, it refers to heritage. Most black people living in the US are Americans whose ancestors are from Africa.

So why don't we refer to EVERYONE by heritage? Why don't we call "white" people "European Americans"?

Because it's ridiculous, and so is "African American".
You're the one that effectively said "you are what you say you are" in terms of sexuality.  You're the one that makes it an option.

The "option" is based upon who you choose to be with romantically and/or sexually, NOT based on "you are what you say you are", which is a concept I've always been AGAINST.

If you've been reading any of my posts at all you should know better than to think I was ever in favor of such a thing.
  It would really help to advance the discussion if you would go the hell away, because everyone else can basically agree to the rest of the world's definition of homosexuality.
I'm sure it would have helped the church if Galileo would have gone away too, but he had logic and fact on his side, and so do I.
You can argue your alternative definition all you want, but it comes down to your word against everyone else's,
What you say here means less than nothing, because it's a logical fallacy. How many people agree with which side is irrelevant in terms of arguing the merits of either.
your opinions on many things have clearly demonstrated far too little critical thinking skills and discernment
The problem is that I HAVE used critical thinking and discernment and have come to a conclusion different than your own, and you just can't handle that.

You think you're the king when it comes to those things and you just can't get how anyone else could feel differently than you do. Well, someone does, and if anything they've used MORE critical thinking and discernment than you have.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending anyone who disagrees with you can't think critically or use discernment.
You're the only one who says you're defined exclusively by choices.
Yes, when it comes to non-biological traits. Obviously skin color and ethnicity don't fall into those categories.
And if being black is something biologically determined and you can't really get away from it, why is sexual preference - also biologically determined - different?
The difference is that sexuality is not biologically determined, as your choices that dictate your sexuality do not necessarily have to follow your biological attraction.

For example, you could be more attracted to women but decide you only want to be with men in romantic and/or sexual situations. This clearly shows that your decision of who to be with indicates your sexuality rather than your simple statement that you feel more attracted to the opposite gender.

Also, race and attraction aren't analogous because race is a physical thing while attraction isn't.



So basically this is the argument from 80 pages ago.  You say sexuality is defined by choices, everyone else here says it's defined by biology.  Now you're arguing that just because everyone else agrees and you don't, there is no clear indication that everyone else is correct.  In general you'd be right.  But what we're arguing about is a DEFINITION.  And BY DEFINITION, the DEFINITION of a word is what people believe that word to mean.  In other words, if 99% of the population agree on the definition of a word, that is BY DEFINITION the correct definition.  See?  Sexual preference is a biological trait.  That is a generally accepted scientific fact at this point.  You can make all the arguments you want about defining people by their choices, but acting straight no more makes a biological homosexual heterosexual than getting a law degree at a top school, expressing himself with impeccable grammar and diction and a massive vocabulary, and becoming the President of the United States makes Obama white.
5/9/2013 5:14 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/9/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):
I LOLed at this.
5/9/2013 5:54 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/9/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Awesome
5/10/2013 8:01 AM
Wrong, on both counts. 

I'm just making fun of you.

No, I nailed it straight on.

You already tried hiding your incompetence by claiming you were making fun of me. It didn't work - I called you out for it anyway. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to change that.
That is more logical than anything bis has ever posted.
Funny, I don't see you running away and hiding from that post and then returning later to re-start the argument like you did with all of mine. I guess its "logic" didn't scare you like mine did.
Now you're arguing that just because everyone else agrees and you don't, there is no clear indication that everyone else is correct.  In general you'd be right.
There is no "in general"; I simply AM right.

Also, this isn't "now" I'm arguing this - I've been saying it from the beginning.
But what we're arguing about is a DEFINITION.
Actually, we're not.

Burnsy tried to turn it into that, but the real argument has been about choices versus biology and which matters in determining sexuality, NOT the definition of "homosexual", "heterosexual" or any other given word.
 And BY DEFINITION, the DEFINITION of a word is what people believe that word to mean.
We already had this discussion many pages ago, during which I educated everyone on how a commonly accepted definition isn't necessary the "correct" definition for a given circumstance. Specifically in the case we were speaking of in this topic, the commonly accepted definition didn't follow logical reasoning because of a propaganda campaign which had (quite effectively) altered what was commonly accepted.

So to argue that a definition is commonly accepted doesn't necessarily establish anything else about that definition - and certainly not that it is inherently "correct".
In other words, if 99% of the population agree on the definition of a word, that is BY DEFINITION the correct definition. 
No, it's not. What is commonly accepted is constantly changing. Beyond that, what is "correct" in any given circumstance isn't always the commonly accepted definition (as I stated above).  This isn't a difficult concept - in fact, I can't believe I have to tell you this.

Sexual preference is a biological trait.  That is a generally accepted scientific fact at this point. 
I don't agree, and you're going to need more than your say so to make any attempt to establish this as "fact".

You can make all the arguments you want about defining people by their choices, but acting straight no more makes a biological homosexual heterosexual than getting a law degree at a top school, expressing himself with impeccable grammar and diction and a massive vocabulary, and becoming the President of the United States makes Obama white.
There is no such thing as "acting straight" or "acting white". You either are straight as defined by your choice of partners, or you are white as defined by your genetics. There is no "acting" involved.
5/10/2013 8:31 AM
Wrong, on both counts. 

I'm just making fun of you.

No, I nailed it straight on.

You already tried hiding your incompetence by claiming you were making fun of me. It didn't work - I called you out for it anyway. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to change that.

No.  Seriously.  I AM just making fun of you. 

Too bad your narcisstic personality disorder doesn't allow you to see that.  You really should seek professional counselling for that.
5/10/2013 8:40 AM
I'm pretty sure tec really is just making fun of you.    That may be hard to accept but it's sort of a fact.   Sometimes people do that.   I had an ALL CAPS posting spree a few weeks ago in this thread.   Dripping with sarcasm.    I posted "So what?" at the start of every post for a day.  Poking fun at BL.    Regardless of how right you think you are, people will make fun of you if they see you as clownish.  So deal with it, Bozotiza.
5/10/2013 8:51 AM
I'm sure the Amazing Kreskintiza will tell you that you're wrong because, apparently, he can read my mind.
5/10/2013 9:08 AM
No.  Seriously.  I AM just making fun of you. 
The cat is out of the bag. You didn't get some things, and that's fine, but it's just sad that you can't admit it and have to rely on the classic playground bully excuse of "well, I was just making fun of you". Repeating it over and over doesn't help you and only calls attention back to your original misunderstandings.
Too bad your narcisstic personality disorder doesn't allow you to see that.  You really should seek professional counselling for that.
Another classic response - you pretend there is something wrong with the person who keeps pointing out all your failures.

Well, thank you, Dr. Freud, the expert in diagnosing mental health issues based upon arbitrary posts at an online message board. Where did you get your degree for that? I'm sure a lot of people would love to learn how to make those diagnosis and recommend counseling for others. I bet it pays really well too.

You're a joke, tec. You just keep going down the rabbit hole, coming up with more excuses when I point out the flaws in the ones you've already given.

Even if you WERE trying to make fun of me, you failed, so you may as well give up the ghost on this whole thing instead of coming up with pathetic excuses.
I'm pretty sure tec really is just making fun of you.    That may be hard to accept but it's sort of a fact.   Sometimes people do that.
As I said, even if that were true, it was a pathetic attempt that failed, as such childish nonsense often does. Still, it is doubtful that's what he was doing, because this has all the classic earmarks of an attempt to cover incompetence by pretending it was all aimed at mocking someone.
Regardless of how right you think you are, people will make fun of you if they see you as clownish.  So deal with it, Bozotiza.
People make fun of others for various reasons.

Most of the reasons people seek to make fun of others have to do with their own inadequacies rather than the other person. The most common reason, in fact, is because they somehow feel threatened by the subject they seek to make fun of.

It is also worth noting that those who argue from a position of strength never need to attempt personal attacks of any kind since they have confidence in their arguments. Conversely, an attempt to use personal attacks may well indicate the person doing so feels their argument lacks legitimacy.

It's amusing to me how many of you fall into this predictable pattern. You can't handle anyone challenging your opinions with good arguments, so you resort to personal attacks because you have nothing left to use but those.

Perhaps instead of acting childish and trying to make fun of people, you should suck it up and either learn how to argue better or accept that you can't get the best of someone with better debate skills than you.


?
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.