1662: Chemda Loves Movies

[jessnyc]

i would love a spin-off of chemda's old movie reviews hehe

[Earl Dukes]

Originally Posted by Curt

They would also get you thrown out of high school forensics.

That's probably true.

[mrthewhite]

Originally Posted by Curt

The words 'I would think' and 'probably' are both weak words of argument. People who have no facts to fall back on use these to bolster poorly thought out statements.

They would also get you thrown out of high school forensics.

Go fuck yourself Curt.

I said I would think because I'm speaking for myself there for I (me) would think (my thoughts, not someone else's) that he probably (Since I didn't see the act I can't say 100% now can I?) did it. I didn't think I would need to break this down like your a 2 year old but there you go.

Since this is neither a class no a court of law most intelligent people would have understood what I was getting at without over analyzing each an ever word. Which by the way is also the tactic of someone who has no argument left and is unable to form a proper response to my point.

[BrianAlt]

So by "probably his fault" do you mean that he's a douche, therefore it's probably his fault. Or probably his fault because he provoked it?

If the former, then yes, it's his fault. But we have no reason to think he provoked this lunatic's actions.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by mrthewhite

Go fuck yourself Curt.

I said I would think because I'm speaking for myself there for I (me) would think (my thoughts, not someone else's) that he probably (Since I didn't see the act I can't say 100% now can I?) did it. I didn't think I would need to break this down like your a 2 year old but there you go.

Since this is neither a class no a court of law most intelligent people would have understood what I was getting at without over analyzing each an ever word. Which by the way is also the tactic of someone who has no argument left and is unable to form a proper response to my point.

Only idiots assume that their statements is understandable without a well structured argument. I was always taught to make an argument with strong unequivocal language so that no one can misunderstand where you stand or that your facts aren't air tight.

We know that Danny Bonaducci was bitten. We know that he isn't pressing charges. We don't know anything else about the situation.

If I was thinking the way you do mrthewhite I could say based on your previous arguments nothing you say is really that intelligent and should be completely ignored for now on. Instead, I'll keep reading and hope you don't continue shitting the bed.

Good day sir.

[Earl Dukes]

Originally Posted by Curt

Only idiots assume that their statements is understandable without a well structured argument. I was always taught to make an argument with strong unequivocal language so that no one can misunderstand where you stand or that your facts aren't air tight.

We know that Danny Bonaducci was bitten. We know that he isn't pressing charges. We don't know anything else about the situation.

Since you're playing this game, let's take a look at some of your previous comments:

Originally Posted by Curt

The words 'I would think' and 'probably' are both weak words of argument. People who have no facts to fall back on use these to bolster poorly thought out statements.

According to that statement, is the following a poorly thought out statement or a very well thought out statement?

Originally Posted by Curt

If something sketchy happened around Keith, would we assume he was immediately at fault. Probably not, people don't tend to have this reaction to others we perceive as knowning on a personal level. Danny Bonaducci is just an easy target for strangers to level their ire at so they can feel better about their own character flaws.

*Bonus question* (in case you missed the first one): According to the text quoted above, do you have no facts at all, or do you have all the facts?

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Earl Dukes

Since you're playing this game, let's take a look at some of your previous comments:



According to that statement, is the following a poorly thought out statement or a very well thought out statement?



*Bonus question* (in case you missed the first one): According to the text quoted above, do you have no facts at all, or do you have all the facts?

In my Keith scenario, I was talking about a future unknowable state which requires supposition (facts and evidence do not yet exist). Our argument about Danny Bonnaducci was about events that had happened and therefore could be argued on the facts as they stand.

[Earl Dukes]

Originally Posted by Curt

In my Keith scenario, I was talking about a future unknowable state which requires supposition (facts and evidence do not yet exist). Our argument about Danny Bonnaducci was about events that had happened and therefore could be argued on the facts as they stand.

Right, and you were arguing that we can't make assumptions about Ducci because we don't have facts and evidence about the incident. So, in both scenarios, there are no facts, and there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by Curt

There should have been a third option, "I don't have all the facts so unlike some assholes I won't prejudge."

Originally Posted by Curt

We know that Danny Bonaducci was bitten. We know that he isn't pressing charges. We don't know anything else about the situation.

So, I ask again: According to the text quoted above and according to the text above the text above that, do you have no facts at all, or do you have all the facts?

[Earl Dukes]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

You two must be a blast at parties.

Haha, sorry, bro. Dude just needs to know you get what you pay for. If he's gonna rail people with BS about high school forensics and call people dumb, then he'd better expect some on the rebound. It wasn't even my fight to begin with. I'm just having a laugh, seeing how far we can logic this shit.

[JSZilla]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

You two ARE PROBABLY a blast at parties.

There ya go.