09-30-2015, 01:07 PM
(09-30-2015, 12:38 PM)djs7685 Wrote: 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).
So let me get this straight.
You agree that Marvin can beat Belichick.
And you also agree that the past does not dictate the future.
But when I say it there is a contradiction, but when you say it there is no contradiction?
And this is somehow because i change the definitions of words? What word definition did I change to make the comments a contradiction when I say them, but not a contradiction when you say the?
The fact is that you took two different comments for two different arguments and tried to claim there was some sort of contradiction.......but only when I say it......when you say the exact same thing somehow there is no contradiction.
You fail at logic.
