09-30-2015, 12:06 PM
(09-30-2015, 11:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: You fail at not realizing that you contradicted yourself.
You said the past does not dictate the future. Using that logic, you can't bring up anything that has happened in the past, whether it means it has a "chance" to do something or not. This has nothing to do with guarantees or chance, the past doesn't dictate the future, remember? The fact that Marvin has beaten Bill in the past is 100% irrelevant even for the possibility of a future outcome if "the past does not dictate the future".
I know this may be difficult for you, but these words we're using have actual definitions, and you can't go around changing them and expect everyone to just agree with your new terms. Either use words properly or be prepared for someone that understands how to use them to educate you on them.
Nice try though.
(09-30-2015, 11:29 AM)BleedNOrange Wrote: Yup. I was just about to write the same thing but you beat me to it.
Don't worry though, it is lawyer speak...talk in circles so no one knows what you are saying.
I didn't change the meaning of any words in any way. If the future does not dictate the past then anything is possible in the future. And all I ever said was that it was possible for Marvin to beat Belichick.
You are just trying to twist two different arguments into one without offering the alternative which you claim is correct.
To prove my point all you have to do is answer two questions.
Is it possible for Marvin Lewis to beat Bill Belichick, and is your answer in any way based on what has happened in the past?
I am pretty sure that your answer will prove that you agree with both of my comments. That is because there are no logical contradictions between my two comments when they are presented in the proper context. If you understood logical analysis you would understand that the two different comments were in response to two different claims that are not one and the same.
