Conn Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I wonder if vergara is a fan ... wow. No http://www.fatpickled.com/?p=3411 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How can we take anyone's word for anything in this organization. How many times did Kyle and Mike Shanahan trip over their words about BOTH McNabb benchings? And McNabb is the lying scum? Please... Two wrongs don't make a right. Shanahan was at least man enough to admit bungling the Detroit benching. McNabb still has done nothing about his agent's supposedly libelous statements. I, for one, find the "I didn't know who was the starter" **** to be BS regardless if Shanahan was out to stick it to McNabb or not. If Shanahan had something "personal", then Grossman would have been crowned on Tuesday and have been with the first team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How can we take anyone's word for anything in this organization? How many times did Kyle and Mike Shanahan trip over their words about BOTH McNabb benchings? And McNabb is the lying scum? Please... He's referring to McNabb denying feeling/thinking/saying the things that his agent has said he's feeling/thinking/saying, etc. Either he's lying and letting his agent do his dirty work while playing the innocent in the media, or his agent went rogue on him. And since he didn't fire the guy, I'd say that's unlikely. McNabb has always worked the media and the public with his passive-aggressive bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 here's a pic. ..didn't see this? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2011/02/donovan_mcnabb_joe_gibbs_and_t.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Two wrongs don't make a right. Shanahan was at least man enough to admit bungling the Detroit benching. McNabb still has done nothing about his agent's supposedly libelous statements. I, for one, find the "I didn't know who was the starter" **** to be BS regardless if Shanahan was out to stick it to McNabb or not. If Shanahan had something "personal", then Grossman would have been crowned on Tuesday and have been with the first team. I don't find that to be BS at all. Especially since McNabb led the Redskins down the field for a potential game tying drive only to have the extra point foiled only days earlier. It's unheard of and I can only hope that Shanahan is making the right moves here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't find that to be BS at all. Especially since McNabb led the Redskins down the field for a potential game tying drive only to have the extra point foiled only days earlier. It's unheard of and I can only hope that Shanahan is making the right moves here... That's if he said it in the first place. Or even if he did say it, was it in the context of just the drive, or his play in the entire game. But here's the deal-breaker for your pathetic brain. Let's begin with defining the word "agent": 4 : one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent> b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : spy <secret agent> c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent 1. Person Y authorizes agent X to act in place of person Y for all matters of a certain domain 2. Y issues a planned statement for his client; he is speaking FOR that client. 3. Person Y says "he didn't say any of that", this means that Agent X was NOT speaking for Person Y 4. Agent X says that he " still stands by his statement" for his client. The implication is that Agent X IS speaking for person Y. Contradiction: Agent X cannot be both be speaking for person Y and NOT speaking for person Y. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 But here's the deal-breaker for your pathetic brain. Wow, bro. First of all, we're talking about sports, not quantum physics. Then, you follow this zinger with definitions you found online. The simple fact you know how to use google does not make your brain any less "pathetic" than mine. I'm simply here tonight to give my opinion. Whether you understand it, agree with it, or don't read it at all is none of my concern. EDIT: Oh, and another tip Mr. Internet Scholar. When trying to degrade someone on the internet with your vast wealth of knowledge, using Wikipedia as a source isn't the best way to establish your credibility. If you follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_redskins, and scroll to where the roster is, you will see it "accurately" states that Deangelo Hall is an unrestricted free agent. Hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wow, bro. First of all, we're talking about sports, not quantum physics. Then, you follow this zinger with definitions you found online. The simple fact you know how to use google does not make your brain any less "pathetic" than mine. I'm simply here tonight to give my opinion. Whether you understand it, agree with it, or don't read it at all is none of my concern.EDIT: Oh, and another tip Mr. Internet Scholar. When trying to degrade someone on the internet with your vast wealth of knowledge, using Wikipedia as a source isn't the best way to establish your credibility. If you follow this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_redskins, and scroll to where the roster is, you will see it "accurately" states that Deangelo Hall is an unrestricted free agent. Hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right to me... No, it was just a test to see how you would react. It had no logical relevance. It was there to trigger an emotional response from you. The results in your post shows that it got to your head. You've established that Wikipedia can be inaccurate. You have not established that what it is about the Principle of noncontradiction is inaccurate. Logic is not a very hard to understand subject. Google "introduction logic" and you'll that this stuff standard in the field. I don't find it very esoteric and actually very mundane. It's you who thinks it's "all that". In fact, I'll copy and paste from non-Wikipedia sites for you. http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/logic/logic6.html http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ (this link can be found on the bottom of the wikipedia page on the same subject. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 No, it was just a test to see how you would react. It had no logical relevance. It was there to trigger an emotional response from you. The results in your post shows that it got to your head. ) Uhh, sorry to butt in here, but wow. I think you're going a little overboard. It's my experience with 'internet arguing' that when people start dropping links and changing the subject to what's 'logical' and what's not... It's because they're backpedaling after saying something ridiculous. You can link me to everything in the world, and quote everything Donovan and his agent have said, but calling him 'lying scum' was just a stupid thing to say, and it's wayy overboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Uhh, sorry to butt in here, but wow. I think you're going a little overboard.It's my experience with 'internet arguing' that when people start dropping links and changing the subject to what's 'logical' and what's not... It's because they're backpedaling after saying something ridiculous. You can link me to everything in the world, and quote everything Donovan and his agent have said, but calling him 'lying scum' was just a stupid thing to say, and it's wayy overboard. He misled his offensive coordinator and he lied to him as well with that "I didn't say that" BS. I don't mind players who [vehemently] disagree with a coach if there is good reason, but to publicly attack a coach like that is low. The "proof" that McNabb lied is separate from the insult. The "proof" can be attacked on its own grounds, be it shown by a flaw in methodology or a false premise. It's there to be challenged so one can so if it really holds water or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 No, it was just a test to see how you would react. It had no logical relevance. It was there to trigger an emotional response from you. The results in your post shows that it got to your head. Wish I had the kind of time you have to sit there and push people's buttons on the internet. I'm truly envious. ---------- Post added February-7th-2011 at 08:18 PM ---------- Uhh, sorry to butt in here, but wow. I think you're going a little overboard.It's my experience with 'internet arguing' that when people start dropping links and changing the subject to what's 'logical' and what's not... It's because they're backpedaling after saying something ridiculous. You can link me to everything in the world, and quote everything Donovan and his agent have said, but calling him 'lying scum' was just a stupid thing to say, and it's wayy overboard. Can't agree with you more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wish I had the kind of time you have to sit there and push people's buttons on the internet. I'm truly envious. A rational person would have blown it off and tried find a counterargument to the reductio ad absurdum I attempted. But you seem to have no interest in doing sound reasoning, even though independent resources learn it are there for your perusal. I'm quite aware logic is a double-edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 A rational person would have blown it off and tried find a counterargument to the reductio ad absurdum I attempted. But you seem to have no interest in doing sound reasoning, even though independent resources learn it are there for your perusal. I'm quite aware logic is a double-edged sword. Are we even talking about the Redskins anymore? Here is my website for reference on the Redskins. http://www.redskins.com/gen/index.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Are we even talking about the Redskins anymore? Here is my website for reference on the Redskins. http://www.redskins.com/gen/index.jsp Yes, McNabb is part of the Redskins. Shanahan is part of the Redskins. Debating how to "prove" a point regarding McNabb and Shanahan is related to the Redskins, if only indirectly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yes, McNabb is part of the Redskins. Shanahan is part of the Redskins. Debating how to "prove" a point regarding McNabb and Shanahan is related to the Redskins, if only indirectly so. You threw rational conversation out the window when you decided to insult a person you don't even know. Therefore, this thread is no longer relevant, at least to me, and I'll move on. As you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 You threw rational conversation out the window when you decided to insult a person you don't even know. Therefore, this thread is no longer relevant, at least to me, and I'll move on. As you should. You threw it out well before then. I don't expect you to have the humility to accept that fact though, since strawmans are one of your favorite toys. I leave you with the following, which you will reject as false because you [justifably] don't like me: Deductive and inductive logicLogic is often characterized as the study of correct reasoning. Human persons are able to make inferences that take them from the truth of some statements, such as If Paris is in France, then Paris is in Europe. and Paris is in France. to the truth of other statements, such as Paris is in Europe. But we should note that in depicting logic as the study of correct reasoning, we mean that it studies the structure of arguments rather than that it investigates the psychology of the human mind. The question of exactly how it is that the human mind incorporates the principles of logic in its actual reasoning processes is not really something that the topic of logic deals with. Logic and reasoning can be deductive or inductive. Deductive reasoning occurs when an argument takes us from some statements (the premises) to another statement (the conclusion) in such a way that if the inference is correct and the premises are true, the conclusion can be known to be true with certainty. The above example of a short argument concerning Paris, France, and Europe is an example of deductive reasoning. If it is true that "if Paris is in France, then Paris is in Europe," and it is also true that "Paris is in France," then it must also be the case that "Paris is in Europe." Do you see that this is so? Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, occurs when an argument takes us from premises to a conclusion that follows from those premises only with some degree of probability. "Argument" here of course means not quarreling and bickering but a sequence of statements or propositions intended to establish a conclusion. Let's take some examples. When I reason that since: The bird in the cornfield is a crow. and, All crows are black. therefore, The bird in the cornfield is black. I use deductive logic. But if I initially established that all crows are black by observing several crows and concluding that probably all were black, I used an inductive argument, as in: Crow number one is black. Crow number two is black. Crow number two is black. therefore, All crows are black. An old way of distinguishing deductive from inductive arguments was to say that deductive arguments take us from the general to the particular ("all crows are black, therefore this particular crow is black"), whereas inductive arguments take us from the particular to the general ("these particular crows are black, therefore all crows are black"). One can see the grain of truth in this characterization of the distinction, but apparently it's not quite right. Deductive arguments can take us from the general to the general ("All Parisians are Europeans, and all Europeans are from Europe, therefore all Parisians are from Europe"). And inductive arguments can take us from the particular to the particular ("John was late yesterday, therefore he will be late today"). The following discussion explores further aspects of deductive logic. Note that PT-Thinker can handle deductive arguments. If you give PT-Thinker the premises of an argument, it will produce the conclusion. If you give it the premises and ask it about a statement that really follows from the premises, it will agree. If you give it the premises and ask it about a statement that really does not follow from those premises or any others it has been given, it will tell you that as well. As you go through the following discussion of aspects of logic you might try out the sample arguments in PT-Thinker to see how it reacts. PT-Thinker cannot handle inductive arguments, because it has not been given the relevant rules that would allow it to deduce a conclusion from premises that do not establish the conclusion with deductive certainly. So we'll stick to deduction. Validity and soundness Let's introduce a few terms. First, we notice that an argument consists of sentences, statements, or propositions arranged in a certain way. Not all sentences are statements; for example a sentence could be a question. Statements are true or false, and questions are neither. Some thinkers want to distinguish statements from propositions, which they say are the abstract entities expressed by particular statements or sentences. So, to use a common example It's raining. Es regnet. Il pleut. are three sentences or statements in particular languages (English, German, and French) that express the same proposition. The status of propositions is a little controversial because some thinkers don't like such abstract entities. We'll just refer to the component of an argument as "statements," or more particularly, premises and conclusions. As already touched on, the statements in an argument are arranged in such a way that some are considered premises that support another statement, the conclusion. If the argument is deductively correct, the truth of the premises would entail the truth of the conclusion, that is, it would not be possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises were all true. A deductively correct argument we call "valid." For example, the following arguments are deductively valid: If John's mouth is on fire, then John ate Mexican again. It's not the case that John ate Mexican again. therefore, It's not the case that John's mouth is on fire. Either Paris is in France or Berlin is in Japan. Paris is not in France. therefore, Berlin is in Japan. This last one might surprise you - an argument can be deductively valid even though one or more of its premises are false. In the case of a deductively valid argument, if all the premises were true, the conclusion would be true, but this is not the same as saying that all the premises must be or are in fact true. The argument can be valid even though one or more of the premises (and the conclusion) are false. (What we can't have in a deductively valid argument is for all the premises to be in fact true and yet the conclusion in fact false.) For example, the following arguments are deductively valid but it is clear that at least one premise in each is in fact false. (See if you can spot the premise(s) and/or conclusion that is false.) Some humans are hamsters. All hamsters are furry little critters. therefore, Some humans are furry little critters. Some fitness freaks are treadmill fanatics. Most turtles are treadmill fanatics. therefore, Some fitness freaks are treadmill fanatics and most turtles are treadmill fanatics. If the argument is valid and the premises are in fact all true (and of course the conclusion true, since the argument is valid), we say that the argument is sound. Not everyone in the history of logic has used "valid" and "sound" in precisely this way, but the usage is now pretty common. Laws of thought While logic isn't psychology, an awful lot of people through history have held that when human reasoning is functioning correctly it follows certain logical principles. The most basic of these principles became known as the "laws of thought." These are the principle of contradiction (or non-contradiction), the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity. The principle of contradiction states that a statement and its contradiction (exact opposite) are not both true. So it's not the case that both of the following statements are true: Most turtles can run so fast even a cheetah would be impressed. It's not the case that most turtles can run so fast even a cheetah would be impressed. The law of the excluded middle states that every statement is either true or false. So each of the following statements is either true or false (no middle ground): Paris is in France. Some airplane flights go to Germany. If you want to go to France, don't get on a flight to Germany. Some zebras like to eat. Some kids do not like to eat some types of cookies. Some zebras like to eat the types of cookies that some kids do not like to eat. The law of identity may seem a little peculiar. It can be characterized as the claim that a statement is identical to itself, and therefore seems trivially true to most of us. So for example: Some warblers are fast feeders. is identical to: Some warblers are fast feeders. See what PT-Thinker thinks about the laws of thought. Type in sentences that violate them and see what it does. For example, type in a statement and its contradiction and see if PT-Thinker will assent to the truth of both. Type in some statements and see if PT-Thinker ever gives you neither a "yes" nor a "no" but a "maybe." Type in a sentence twice and see if PT-Thinker gives you a "yes" the first time and a "no" the second time. Truth functionality Some propositions are simple, such as "Paris is in France." It's possible to build up more complex compound statements from connecting these simple statements using terms such as "and" and "or." When we do so, the truth of the compound statements depends on the truths of the component statements and the particular way that they are connected. So for example: Aardvarks dwell in parks and mouses stick to houses. depends on the truth of both of the following two statements: Aardvarks dwell in parks. Mouses stick to houses. Note that you are saying they are both true, so the truth of the compound proposition depends on both simple statements being true (and not just one or the other). If you had said "or," instead of "and," the compound statement would have true if either one had been true (or if both; logicians usually interpret the "or" here in a nonexclusive fashion, though they can represent an exclusive sense with a little more work). You might say the truth of the compound proposition is a function of the truths of the simple ones and the way the connective (connector "and" or "or") works. Another important connective is "not." Using "not" changes a truth value of a statement into its opposite. But you must be careful where you place the term "not" in a statement; not every placement is the kind of negation you want, namely one that gives the opposite truth-value. For example, how would you change the following statement into its opposite? All termites are pests. Here are some suggestions: All termites are not pests. Not all termites are pests. The first attempt is probably not what you want, because some people will interpret it to mean that "no termites are pests," which is a statement that will not have the exact opposite truth-value of our original claim that "all termites are pest." To see this is the case, consider the situation in which some termites are pests and some are not. In this situation, it will be false that "all termites are pests," and false that "no termites are pests," and so these two statements will have the same truth-value. This is not what we are looking for in negating the original sentence! What we want is for the statement and its negation to always have the opposite (different) truth-value. Therefore, the second attempt above, that claims that "not all termites are pests," is a better interpretation of the negation of the original statement that "all termites are pests." These statements will in fact always have different truth values - if one is false, the other will be true, and vice versa. Deductive arguments can involve not just simple statements but also these more complex compound statements built up using the truth functional connectives. Some valid patterns of argument that use these compound statements are so common they have been recognized and named; you might call them "rules of inference." Examples are Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. In the case of arguments exemplifying such patterns, we say they are "truth functionally valid" because their validity depends on the way the form of the argument involves the truth functional connectives. Here are some arguments exemplifying some other common argument forms or "rules of inference.". See if you can test PT-Thinker to determine the validity of the arguments that use them. (Give it the premises and ask it about the conclusion.) Modus Ponens If dinosaurs are really birds, Neanderthals wore metal hats. Dinosaurs are really birds. therefore Neanderthals wore metal hats. Modus Tollens If logic is worth studying, then logic is worth studying well. It's not the case that logic is worth studying well. therefore It's not the case that logic is worth studying Hypothetical Syllogism If bears are happy campers, then bears won't bother human campers. If bears won't bother real campers, then human campers will be happy campers. therefore If bears are happy campers, then human campers will be happy campers. Be careful, because some arguments that superficially appear to resemble Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are not in fact valid arguments. Examples are "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequent." See if you can see what is wrong with the following arguments. It may be a little tricky to see; remember that it is not whether the premises and conclusion are true that matters, but whether the truth of the conclusion would follow necessarily from the truth of all the premises. Denying the antecedent If some cigarettes are worth smoking then some cigarettes are worth dying for. It's not the case that some cigarettes are worth smoking. therefore It's not the case that some cigarettes are worth dying for. Affirming the consequent. If some cigarettes are worth smoking then some cigarettes are worth dying for. Some cigarettes are worth dying for. therefore Some cigarettes are worth smoking. See what PT-Thinker has to say about whether the above arguments are valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 you freaking genious ...my god, way to snag that pic in your sig. when I saw that I freaked out. the hottest chick in that commercial wearing our gear ...NICE!!! I wonder if vergara is a fan ... wow. Haha I dont know about genius, but thank you. She's one of my favorites so I had to snag it as soon as I saw her in Skins gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 This is why we can't have nice things HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Best post of the week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I thought it very odd and inappropriate. Why Gibbs and McNabb? Why not Gibbs and Doug Williams? My conspiracy theory is that Snyder is still pulling the strings! Why is it inappropriate? Redskins fans are hilarious. He's a Redskin at the moment. It's not like Snyder sent henchmen to his house and forced him to attend the Superbowl and stand next to Joe Gibbs. Inappropriate? Have we become that fragile a fan base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I just dont understand how there can be an argument in this forum??? :doh::doh: It's the greatest Redskins coach of all time and one of the greatest coaches of all time period, paired with the most recognizable Redskin player since Joe Theisman. The problem with some Redskins fans is they cant think outside the beltway. Noone outside the D.C area knows who is on this Redskins team. Noone considers London Fletcher, Santana Moss and Brian Orakpo superstars ok.. so get off your homer horses! Donovan McNabb is a super star and he's the only player that would be considered in a Primetime Super Bowl piece like that... benched or not. It was a great piece and just like the youtuber suggested in his video, it really made me think of how great the Gibbs 2.0 teams could've been with McNabb. I know we make it to the SB in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B55Green Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Figured they would have had Hanburger next to him, but guess he was doing something with the HOF members. Didn't see the beginning so I can't speak for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I had briefly forgotten that McNabb was on the team until the spot. Anyway - say what you will - but Donovan can wear the hell out of a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 you freaking genious ...my god, way to snag that pic in your sig. when I saw that I freaked out. the hottest chick in that commercial wearing our gear ...NICE!!! I wonder if vergara is a fan ... wow. I hope she is, but her show takes place in or around DC, which is why she's wearing that. All the other characters live in a town that is close to, or is, a football city. South Park (Denver) and the Broncos, The Office (New England) and the Pats, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I hope she is, but her show takes place in or around DC, which is why she's wearing that. All the other characters live in a town that is close to, or is, a football city. South Park (Denver) and the Broncos, The Office (New England) and the Pats, etc. She isn't Everyone of those clips in that commercial were edited: http://www.fatpickled.com/?p=3411&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselfan44 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I have this strange feeling D-Mac will be back next year. Hail! I could see that happening as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.