09-30-2015, 12:38 PM
(09-30-2015, 12:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong. You are making the same mistake that DJS did. You fail to see that the two different comments were in two different contexts. If you are going to insist that there is a contradiction then you can not agree with both of these comments.
It is possible for Marvin to beat Belichick.
The past does not dictates the future.
So which one do you disagree with? If your claim is correct then you can not agree with both.
The past can absolutely dictate the future in certain ways. It doesn't in this case though, so I'm agreeing that Marvin can beat Bill. BUT....
The statements were 100% contradictory if you know the given definitions of the words that you keep using.
You can't say that Marvin beating Bill in the past means that it CAN happen, yet "the past doesn't dictate the future". Those contradict each other. I know that you'll never admit that you're wrong, but the people that understand the words' definitions can obviously see the hypocrisy.
I'm "twisting" a total of 0 things. You just don't understand the definitions of words that you're using and you can't admit that.
Let me make this really simple for you to understand. Marvin CAN beat Bill in the future, that's 100% correct, but it's not because of anything that happened in 2013 (which you used as your reasoning, herp derp).
