Merril Hodge says Bengals can compete with the Patriots

[McC]

(09-30-2015, 06:29 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If the past doesn't dictate the future, you can't use the past as the reason why something is possible in the future.

The two statements contradict each other. That's just the way it is with the wording of each sentence. I'm not the guy that created the words and I didn't define them. It's mind blowing that there are people that think certain words don't have absolutely defined meanings.

This has nothing to do with your baby analogy, completely different case here. I'll try to explain yet again...

Marvin CAN beat Bill, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 2013. The statement that Marvin can beat Bill is absolutely the truth, but not for the reason that you and Fred are claiming. 2013 has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of the event happening in the 2015 playoffs. If you're going to claim the past doesn't dictate the future, you especially can't claim the reason Marvin can beat Bill has something to do with 2013. You'd be wrong on 2 different levels if that's your claim.

Once something has happened, the word impossible can never be applied to it ever again.    Ever.  Until the end of time.  That is the meaning of the word.  It doesn't have to happen again and again.  Once is all it takes.  That's not the past dictating the future.  That is the law of language dictating the meaning of a word.  That is the law of the universe dictating the way things work.

If something happens once, there is no guarantee it will ever happen again, just like something having never happened is no guarantee it can't happen.

But something happening is clearly and without a doubt proof that it is possible.  Marvin beating Bill is not proof that he ever will again but it is proof that it is not impossible.  Highly unlikely, once in a blue moon, really doubtful, snowball's chance in hell, maybe.  Impossible, absolutely not.