Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

[TheGreatBarryB]

Such a grub.

He has a son the same age as mine and I found myself sitting next to him at basketball tryouts....I actually had to move as I didn’t trust myself not to verbally abuse him.

He is just scum.

Grub...scum, now normally I may pull you up on this but it really aptly sums him last few years.

In the NSW casino inquiry he needed notes to state what his thoughts were on what ‘independent director’ meant. Not to mention that notes are not allowed in any witness boxes.

This short passage then sums up his complete negligence and it needs to be said the astoundingly poor governance Also highlights what a complete joke his appointment was in the first place. Grubby scum indeed

 

[IHurley]

Strawman.

No one said that at all. There isn't a mob outside Ed's house, and his livelihood has barely suffered a speedbump.

What people HAVE said is that he probably should step down from the Collingwood presidency immediately.

Is there a mob outside Lumumba's?

If not, he can stop "whinging" can't he?

 

[eth-dog]

Howard Moon this is what I was talking about.

 

[Jade]

Is there a mob outside Lumumba's?

If not, he can stop "whinging" can't he?

False equivalency.

Man I could be playing logical fallacy bingo here!

 

[IHurley]

False equivalency.

Man I could be playing logical fallacy bingo here!

Yes you're right it is fallacious to say "false equivalence" without explaining why they're not. Prima facie it makes sense to judge Lumumba's predicament using the same metrics as for McGuire (I assume you accept they're both conscious human beings).

The fact that you think we need to judge them differently requires an explanation. "Because you make up the rules to suit your narrative" is the most likely explanation but I'll let you have a go.

 

[Jade]

Yes you're right it is fallacious to say "false equivalence" without explaining why they're not. Prima facie it makes sense to judge Lumumba's predicament using the same metrics as for McGuire (I assume you accept they're both conscious human beings).

The fact that you think we need to judge them differently requires an explanation. "Because you make up the rules to suit your narrative" is the most likely explanation but I'll let you have a go.

Are you sure you wanna do this dance mate?

 

[IHurley]

Are you sure you wanna do this dance mate?

So no explanation then?

 

[Bjchan13]

We're back on!

 

[Jade]

So no explanation then?

Okay pumpkin, as you wish.

A false equivalence occurs when you suggest that because there is a similar trait or link between two things, for example that both Eddie McGuire and Heritier Lumumba are involved in the circumstances surrounding the 'Do Better' report, that they should be treated as equal.

So when I suggested that a mob isn't outside Ed's house and therefore people should stop acting like he's under an enormous and unreasonable weight:

Strawman.

No one said that at all. There isn't a mob outside Ed's house, and his livelihood has barely suffered a speedbump.

What people HAVE said is that he probably should step down from the Collingwood presidency immediately.

Your response was to oafishly stumble in to a false equivalency.

Is there a mob outside Lumumba's?

If not, he can stop "whinging" can't he?

If Ed (or people on his behalf) should stop whinging about his treatment, Lumumba should too.

That's a false equivalency.

Now your demand that I explain it to you, even after I gave you an opportunity to back away - that's not a logical fallacy.

That's just derpy.

 

[DapperJong]

Okay pumpkin, as you wish.

A false equivalence occurs when you suggest that because there is a similar trait or link between two things, for example that both Eddie McGuire and Heritier Lumumba are involved in the circumstances surrounding the 'Do Better' report, that they should be treated as equal.

So when I suggested that a mob isn't outside Ed's house and therefore people should stop acting like he's under an enormous and unreasonable weight:



Your response was to oafishly stumble in to a false equivalency.



If Ed (or people on his behalf) should stop whinging about his treatment, Lumumba should too.

That's a false equivalency.

Now your demand that I explain it to you, even after I gave you an opportunity to back away - that's not a logical fallacy.

That's just derpy.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Yes you're right it is fallacious to say "false equivalence" without explaining why they're not. Prima facie it makes sense to judge Lumumba's predicament using the same metrics as for McGuire (I assume you accept they're both conscious human beings).

The fact that you think we need to judge them differently requires an explanation. "Because you make up the rules to suit your narrative" is the most likely explanation but I'll let you have a go.

Did you just include this to try and sound smarter?

 

[IHurley]

Okay pumpkin, as you wish.

A false equivalence occurs when you suggest that because there is a similar trait or link between two things, for example that both Eddie McGuire and Heritier Lumumba are involved in the circumstances surrounding the 'Do Better' report, that they should be treated as equal.

So when I suggested that a mob isn't outside Ed's house and therefore people should stop acting like he's under an enormous and unreasonable weight:

What drivel. If you think McGuire deserves his predicament then you need to argue *that*. But instead, your feeble argument was "well it's ok because he isn't *really* being harmed is he?"

So my counterargument is "on that exact same basis you can argue that Lumumba also hasn't been harmed".

So no. No false equivalency. It's exactly equivalent because I was arguing against precisely your argument. Sorry you got this wrong and sorry you don't understand logic so you just proffer up what you believe to be fallacies (but you don't understand why) but that's just how it is.

Your response was to oafishly stumble in to a false equivalency.

Oafish or not, it wasn't false. It was exactly analogous. It demonstrated how stupid your position is.

I'll repeat. Taking your *exact* argument to its logical conclusion in order to demonstrate that it's terrible is not a fallacy. It's a perfectly valid method of debate.

You're welcome.

If Ed (or people on his behalf) should stop whinging about his treatment, Lumumba should too.

That's a false equivalency.

Now your demand that I explain it to you, even after I gave you an opportunity to back away - that's not a logical fallacy.

That's just derpy.

I don't know where you got the idea you can argue from. But that place is wrong.

I mean, you wrote a whole bunch of drivel but not once did you ever come close to attempting to answer my question.

Listen I will simple it down for you ok because you need it.

You said: McGuire is not being harmed *because* there is no frontyard mob.

That was your argument. I thought such an argument intensely stupid of course (because it is) and to point out why it is intensely stupid I said

"well under that metric Lumumba is unharmed too"

Now, you have to explain why a lack of a frontyard mob is a good metric for McGuire but not Lumumba.

Just to reiterate - this is *your* [stupid] metric not mine.

Now try again.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

So, ah, sorry to interrupt the entertainment, but will the Vic clubs halt training over the next five days?

 

[IHurley]

Did you just include this to try and sound smarter?

The only possible way I can keep up with the genius of yourself and Jade is repeating Latin.

 

[IHurley]

So you love white supremacists?

I assume many people here will think it acceptable for you to lose your job/family/reputation/anything else you value.

Jade will say "it's ok if you lose your job, your family, your reputation and anything else just as long as there is no mob on your frontyard".

 

[DapperJong]

So you love white supremacists?

I just posted a picture mate.

I assume

Yep.

I assume many people here will think it acceptable for you to lose your job/family/reputation/anything else you value.

If you deserve it, sure. Like, i dunno, if you ran a systemically racist football club?

 

[DapperJong]

So, ah, sorry to interrupt the entertainment, but will the Vic clubs halt training over the next five days?

stage 4 so probably

 

[IHurley]

If you deserve it, sure. Like, i dunno, if you ran a systemically racist football club?

But you seem to think it's ok to run systematically racist political parties.

 

[Lore]

Man I could be playing logical fallacy bingo here!

I think, if logical fallacy bingo was a drinking game (and someone should make one if it doesn't already exist), the forum would definitely have you passed out drunk pretty quickly (or perhaps finding your way to ye olde drunk tank in the hangar for a break...)

Having said that, not entirely convinced most of the posters on this site aren't permanently drunk in the first place.

 

[Beerfish]

Having said that, not entirely convinced most of the posters on this site aren't permanently drunk in the first place.

Was that directed at me?

 

[Lore]

Was that directed at me?

 

[Lore]

Systemic racism is a great topic... for the politics thread.

The Hangar Politics Thread

 

[VelvetSledge]

I think, if logical fallacy bingo was a drinking game (and someone should make one if it doesn't already exist), the forum would definitely have you passed out drunk pretty quickly (or perhaps finding your way to ye olde drunk tank in the hangar for a break...)

Having said that, not entirely convinced most of the posters on this site aren't permanently drunk in the first place.

Have you watched the team we support recently?

In other non-systemic racism news, looks like Zac Williams copped a nasty shoulder to the face in training today, just like the rest of Victoria did this afternoon

 

[Beerfish]

Have you watched the team we support recently?

Was that directed at me?

 

[Lore]

Have you watched the team we support recently?

Well they certainly act like they're drunk sometimes too.


Learningss