General Bombers Talk Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.


Rarely in kitchens at parties.
Aug 23, 2010
Information Superhighway
AFL Club
Other Teams
Exers, Gryffindor, Richmond AFLW

(Log in to remove this ad.)


Smug lives here.
Jul 8, 2008
AFL Club
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?"

AGAIN. :laughing:

I'll repeat, AGAIN, what I ACTUALLY said:


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."

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

There's a term for that.

Wait for it.

Here it comes.

One more second...

"False equivalence".

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.
Yeah, it's a false equivalency.

And what argument.:tearsofjoy:

I didn't make one - what I said was that people aren't howling for McGuire to be hung, and that what people have said by and large is that McGuire should step down.

Oafish or not, it wasn't false. It was exactly analogous. It demonstrated how stupid your position is.
My position was 'people have said this'. :smile:

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.
You can repeat it as much as you like, I'd have to have MADE an argument for you to 'take it to its logical conclusion.

See how that works pumpkin?

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"
Which is a false equivalency. :laughing::tearsofjoy:

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.
No, I don't. To do so would be to do what people who sprout false equivalencies want - for you to treat them as a respectable position to argue against.

Which of course they're not.

Because they're a false equivalency.

Now try again.
Sweetheart, you are the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard.

Remove this Banner Ad