- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:36 am to jeff5891
I cant believe you fell for the simpliest PR tactic there is
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:37 am to wildtigercat93
Sandusky "I did not molest the kid, i just gave him lots of naked hugs and spanks"
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:39 am to saintsfan92612
Look up premise and conclusion statements. I'm in no way flaming you. This is something everyone needs to know.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:42 am to Chad504boy
quote:
Sandusky "I did not molest the kid, i just gave him lots of naked hugs and spanks"
Actually it would be like this
"We were just playing around in the shower a bit in an inappriopriate mannor that may have involved sexual acts"
OP- "Well he never said the word Molestation so obviously hes not admitting it!"
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:42 am to jeff5891
I know about the flaws of deductive reasoning, but there is no flaw. Gregg Williams would be an idiot to specifically admit to running a bounty when he can just admit to the all-encompassing pay for performance.
It isn't that complicated. Are you a philosophy major or something?
It isn't that complicated. Are you a philosophy major or something?
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:42 am to Chad504boy
Not the same as my statement so therefore your statement is straw man. And I hope you know what a straw man is
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:45 am to jeff5891
quote:
Not the same as my statement
The same is what it is.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:48 am to jeff5891
you do know what an ad hominem is, right? 
Posted on 3/19/12 at 10:56 am to saintsfan92612
Psych major . Think of it this way
I am thinking of an integer
The number 2 is an integer
therefore, I am thinking of the number two.
This is the same premise conclusion statement that the media and obviously ppl on this board are trying use to say the GW admitted to bounties. Its just plain wrong. The media should definitely know this wrong but they write it anyway and it terrible reporting BC it is not reporting any facts just biased bullshite.
I am thinking of an integer
The number 2 is an integer
therefore, I am thinking of the number two.
This is the same premise conclusion statement that the media and obviously ppl on this board are trying use to say the GW admitted to bounties. Its just plain wrong. The media should definitely know this wrong but they write it anyway and it terrible reporting BC it is not reporting any facts just biased bullshite.
This post was edited on 3/19/12 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:00 am to wildtigercat93
But he said sexual acts so therefore he admitted sexually assaulting a minor and could be charged with that. You are totally twisting another statement to make it the sameas mine and it doesn't work
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:01 am to jeff5891
this isn't fricking psychology! It is a PR issue.
Why admit to something inherently viewed as wrong when you can admit to something that sounds acceptable to the public.
Why admit to a bounty program when you can admit to pay for performance?
It isn't that complicated!
And you logic is flawed.
It is more like:
NFL accuses GW of thinking of the number 2
the number 2 is an integer
GW admits to thinking of an integer but does not deny thinking of the number 2
although that is a pretty stupid example, hopefully you can see the difference.
Why admit to something inherently viewed as wrong when you can admit to something that sounds acceptable to the public.
Why admit to a bounty program when you can admit to pay for performance?
It isn't that complicated!
And you logic is flawed.
It is more like:
NFL accuses GW of thinking of the number 2
the number 2 is an integer
GW admits to thinking of an integer but does not deny thinking of the number 2
although that is a pretty stupid example, hopefully you can see the difference.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:02 am to jeff5891
I did not have sex with that woman. Depending on your definition of sex. I did shove cigars in her pussy and get a few blowjobs under the oval office desk. But i did not have sex with that woman
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:02 am to jeff5891
quote:
But he said sexual acts so therefore he admitted sexually assaulting a minor and could be charged with that.
This totally sounds like whole pay for performance therefore bounty issue we are having. too easy.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:15 am to saintsfan92612
I never said it has to deal with psychology. You asked if I was a philosophy major and I say no I'm a psych and you automatically assume i have been trying to make this about psychology. How did reason to that.
Think of it this way if the NFL investigates and accuses tampa bay for paying players for making interceptions. The coach comes out and says in a statement that he admits to paying for performance.
Now where does he say the he admitted to bounties. But somehow you would think he was admitting to bounties BC pay for performance encompasses bounties. Seriously how did the Tampa bay coach admit to bounties?
The NFL said new orleans was investigated for bounties and paying players for interceptions ect. To deductively reason that GW meant bounties in his pay for performance admission is not valid. Just like my number statement earlier
Think of it this way if the NFL investigates and accuses tampa bay for paying players for making interceptions. The coach comes out and says in a statement that he admits to paying for performance.
Now where does he say the he admitted to bounties. But somehow you would think he was admitting to bounties BC pay for performance encompasses bounties. Seriously how did the Tampa bay coach admit to bounties?
The NFL said new orleans was investigated for bounties and paying players for interceptions ect. To deductively reason that GW meant bounties in his pay for performance admission is not valid. Just like my number statement earlier
This post was edited on 3/19/12 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:16 am to Breesus
Ha as always your flames are hilarious but have nothing to do with what I'm talking about
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:23 am to saintsfan92612
Uh just saw this post. Do you actually know what it means? Please explain how it applys to this discussion. Don't throw out words in philosophy without explaining your reasoning or how you arrived to your conclusion to ask me about ad hominem
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:37 am to saintsfan92612
No its more like
The NFL accused GW of thinking of number 2
GW admits to thinking of an integer
GW must have been thinking of the number 2
How does this make sense. You can't come to the conclusion of a specific when nothing points to that specific. GW could have been talking about any type of pay for performance.
The NFL accused GW of thinking of number 2
GW admits to thinking of an integer
GW must have been thinking of the number 2
How does this make sense. You can't come to the conclusion of a specific when nothing points to that specific. GW could have been talking about any type of pay for performance.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:39 am to jeff5891
Wow, guys.
This thread...
Please let it die.
This thread...
Please let it die.
Posted on 3/19/12 at 11:59 am to Hoodoo Man
quote:
Please let it die.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News