09-30-2015, 01:21 PM
(09-30-2015, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.
Spinning bullshit 101, with Fredtoast. I know the following words may confuse you, and for that I apologize....
You said Marvin can beat Bill (and used 2013 as the reason why it's possible). Then you claim the past can't dictate the future. That's contradicting. There's no way to spin this bullshit, Freddy, it's contradicting if you understand the definitions of all of those words.
I said that Marvin can beat Bill, but it has nothing to do with the past, just the fact that literally any coach can beat any other coach because it's technically a possibility. I also said that the past can dictate the future in certain circumstances, just not this one. That's not contradicting in any way. We're saying different things, so no, we both don't have to be contradicting or not, just YOU.
I'm not going to sit here and give you an English lesson any longer. Have fun being ignorant, it obviously hasn't bothered you in your entire life up to this point, so why let it now. Carry on being a fool.
