windward;3276273 said:
Yeah, you got your butt handed to you by myself and choclate lab the last time we crossed paths. I doubt you would recognize that anyway. I'm also sure you'll throw a cute smiley of you "laughing" in my direction as well.
Whew, what a relief because for a moment I thought you were going to say
chocolate lab. Because we would have problems if you did. So with that, you're only half wrong. If you think you can show where you handed me my butt...then jump, frog, jump.
Only when you're posting it.
1. A person thinks some of criticism's of Wade have been unfair.
2. You argue that if anyone has ever criticized Wade before, regardless of whether of the criticism's merit, they cannot be critical of Wade's detractor's without being a hypocrite. Even if what someone may be critical about may be ridiculous or even merely contentious.
3. My point is that is flawed logic. Just because I rip Wade after a loss doesn't make me a hypocrite if I defend him later. Football is hardly so absolute. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
You try to come off in a manner as if you truly know what logic means and I'm here to tell you that once again, you're way over your head.
When it comes to applying logic and absolutes (because you can't have one without the other), it's either black/white or true/false with non-overlapping values in what is referred to as
Boolian Logic. Now Doomsday 101 is speaking in the hypothetical, utilizing sweeping generalizations which when applied with logic, allows overlapping values (in varying degrees) between what is true and what is false (e.g. gray areas between successful coaching styles and non-successful coaching styles) or what is also commonly referred to as
Fuzzy Logic. I want you to take a moment to reread his hypothesis concerning the Coach Wade statement.
Now given this, there are three things that we call Focus Points that need to be considered when applying logic and absolutes:
1. In order to have rational dialogue, we must assume that there are absolute truths, (Doomsday 101 did not do this, nor did you).
2. We cannot have rational dialogue without presupposing logical absolutes.
3. If there were no such things as logical absolutes, then everything would be relative and no truth could be established.
On the flip side to this (when dealing in absolutes applied to real world issues), there are two things standing in the way of having absolutes. One is that statements are evaluated on a variable scale of truthfulness and the second is that complex issues have multiple statements that must be evaluated
individually to determine the truthfullness of the whole. Coming to the absolute truth is wherein the problem lies.
From a logical standpoint (pun intended), your post has no merit in any varying degrees utilizing logic (although you'd like to think you have a handle on it's definition). Examples of different successful coaching styles such as the comparison and contrast of Gruden is far too simplistic (even for Fuzzy Logic) when applied to Coach Wade. In one example: If A and B are given then C must logically follow (when dealing in absolutes) but fall way short in terms of the hypothetical. Truth represents membership in vaguely defined sets, not likelihood of some event or condition playing out as in probability theory.
I think that this subject has been adequately covered so I'll stop for now while I continue onward and upward with my diabolical mission of destroying Coach Phillips from with inside.
I'll flame his haircut next.
Your turn, ace.
What? I'm trying to type but I can't stop laughing. Please reread what you just wrote - you might want to change it.
