Who will win the NBA Championship?

[ckhokie]

stopped at Bleacher Report

 

[wildturkey]

Exactly, and, if memory serves, I don't think KD or Westie committed another foul. I, for one, am not happy that KD ended the game with such little playing time in the second half, and with two fouls left.

Durant picked up a blocking foul on a poor attempt to draw a charge late in the 4th, but he didn't foul out. By that point, Miami had pretty much sealed the game.

 

[Rocky]

stopped at Bleacher Report

I know, I know. You saw yourself in that post. Its like he had you in mind writing it.

BTW, that is another Tu Quoque.

Nevermind, you could never even comprehend what it means anyways.

As you were.

 

[hokiegrad]

I don't want to come in on either side of this debate, but I do want to ask... For everyone's sake, can you try to be a little less condescending, Rocky? It's starting to really bug me.

 

[Rocky]

I don't want to come in on either side of this debate, but I do want to ask... For everyone's sake, can you try to be a little less condescending, Rocky? It's starting to really bug me.

lol

Like I give a good shit.

 

[ckhokie]

I know, I know. You saw yourself in that post. Its like he had you in mind writing it.

it had nothing to do with me 'seeing myself' but everything to do with your 'facts' and basis for an argument coming from an editorial.

BTW, that is another Tu Quoque.

Nevermind, you could never even comprehend what it means anyways.

As you were.

4 years of Latin. But whatever helps yourself get by I suppose

 

[Rocky]

4 years of Latin. But whatever helps yourself get by I suppose

4 years of latin 1, I bet.

You may be able to say it, but you have no idea what it really means. That was obvious with your comment about Jordan earlier, and then again when dismissing the bleacher report on its face.

You see, you never addressed the issue being discussed, but instead replied with nonsense about the source.

Tu Quoque, and get your money back for that Latin class. It obviously didn't sink in.

 

[hunzworth]

How to Disagree Without Arguing? | Self Improvement Articles and Tips

 

[ckhokie]

alright, guy.

 

[757Hokie83]

“I’m the next O.J.,”

white women in LBJ's life better watch the fuck out!

 

[Ragingcroc]

4 years of latin 1, I bet.

You may be able to say it, but you have no idea what it really means. That was obvious with your comment about Jordan earlier, and then again when dismissing the bleacher report on its face.

You see, you never addressed the issue being discussed, but instead replied with nonsense about the source.

Tu Quoque, and get your money back for that Latin class. It obviously didn't sink in.

Its not fallacy if you dismiss the source but not the argument. Dismissing the Bleacher Report as proof is not a fallacy because he did not say that means Lebron James isn't a jerk.

Its only a fallacy if he said because the Bleacher Report says Lebron is a jerk that means Lebron isn't a jerk because Bleacher Report has said inconsistent things before.

 

[Rocky]

Its not fallacy if you dismiss the source but not the argument. Dismissing the Bleacher Report as proof is not a fallacy because he did not say that means Lebron James isn't a jerk.

Its only a fallacy if he said because the Bleacher Report says Lebron is a jerk that means Lebron isn't a jerk because Bleacher Report has said inconsistent things before.

Ah, not so grasshopper.

You wrongly assumed a fallacy of relavance, when the fallacy is one of logic.

What is implied is that bleacher report is always suspect, as has been posted here and discussed here numerous times. So, he only says that he stopped reading after seeing the words bleacher report, and he never addresses the content of what is said. That, my friend, is a Tu Quoque logical fallacy.

This is a classic Red Herring, whether or not Bleacher Report is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original article.

At least you credit for some critical thinking on the subject, Congrats on that.

 

[ckhokie]

If you are really going to get into fallacies and logical reasoning, look no farther than your own posts. Since you're so well versed in classical fallacy, you should fully understand Bandwagoning and Card Stacking. Both techniques you've used in your posts. Card Stacking, as you have long winded posts of nothing but out of context quotes that you have not cited, and bandwaggoning, as you have cited an editorial opinion piece as fact for the basis (recognize basis of fact) of your argument.

Your initial claim of 'Lebrons lack of character' based on a photoshop and then the actions of one, Dan Gilbert, could also be considered classic non sequitur - as the personal, actions of a 3rd party somehow hold any sort basis on the character of the initial subject. You really do need to check your cause and effects.

And to be fully honest, there were so many glaring mistakes in the Bleacher Report article, that I did go back and include a long edit, although the message board apparently does not allow you to save edits that were older than 10 minutes. At that point, it was about 12:20 IIRC, so instead of rewriting, I went to bed.

 

[Rocky]

You may be asking yourself, where did this discussion about logical fallacy come from? What the fuck is Rocky's major malfunction here?

If I may:

I said "Jordan and Johnson slammed "The Decision" (by LeBron, referring to the press conference)

Which elicited this response by ckhokie

Jordan slammed the decision...ok. A guy who admittedly wasn't going to play one the Dream Team if Isaiah Thomas was on it, a degenerate gambler, and a guy who committed adultery? Great judge of character there. Also, there was a total lack of addressing Johnson's position.

To which I replied

In debate, that's called tu quoque, which is an attempt dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented. Its a logical fallacy.

I thought it was obvious to all readers, but apparently it wasn't.

You see, no one is perfect, so to dismiss my statement with an attack on Jordan's character (who of course has made mistakes in his life, whether or not you believe what ck has to say about Jordan), and therefore not addressing the merit of the Jordan position, is an indirect Tu Quoque towards me, and a direct Tu Quoque towards Jordan.

Its nothing more than a red herring, a copout, a feeble excuse, for not addressing the merits of Jordan's position against LeBron's press conference. LeBron is the subject of the post, while Jordan is ancillary (and even a lifetime of fuckups by Jordan would mean nothing regarding his charge against LeBron), yet ck makes a logical fallacy and attempts content diversion, by trying to make it about Jordan.

lol, looking up, I can see that ck did a google. ck, Im done bubba.

 

[ckhokie]

Come on Rock, you want to get into semantics and don't want to address the 3 most basic debate fallacies that you broke yourself? We're 3 pages in and I still don't think you have posted a reasonable valid point. Oh well. Enjoy the rest of the playoffs, all.

 

[wildturkey]

Hehe. Phallus. Giggity.

 

[Rocky]

Hehe. Phallus. Giggity.

And they say I'm fupped duck.

 

[hunzworth]

games on!

 

[hunzworth]

well that was the dumbest shit i've ever seen.

 

[wildturkey]

Called it. Go me!