Originally Posted by smellypitts (Post 12108294)

The fact is I know a vast deal more about logic than you do.
Until you realize everything is not as it seems,you will be years behind me. Proof is a humanistic term that has to rely on belief/faith/assumptions in your perceptions.
What's this most of this ridiculous shit? I haven't covered any topic but sports.
Believe? You believe you know why a player dropped a ball. You have none of your so called proof whether he ment to or not.
Let's look at the tree in the forrest. Did it make a sound? Since you weren't there,how do you know it even fell? You've already leaped assumptions. How do you know the story you read that it fell or the person that told you is telling the truth?
You are relying on an institution that told you how to initiate logic on their terms,by their methods.
You can try to define logic all day but that doesnt mean what you saw happen on tv ,happen by and for the reasons you think it did.
You've told me you can't tell the difference between fantastic tv reality and mundane life. This tells me you are quite a few steps behind an actual understanding of life/reality and the wisdom to understand the difference.
Go ahead and major in philosophy and logic. It won't help you deal with real life but it will certainly make you easier to influence and lead.

If You Are So intelectual and logical how come the best you can do is "football happened because it happened"..?

On thanks Giving week all the primetime and nationally televised games except for one,ended on the last play or in the last 2 minutes. Are you trying to tell me someone who is supposed to be intelligent , doesn't question that?
12 or 14 completely different teams in completely different situations, all with completely different players,just somehow are lucky enough to have all their games come down to the wire?
It's not logic you possess. It's far, far too much faith.

Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 12106985)

Haha, Sweet Daddy Dumbass is saying I lack wisdom. :) That is rich.

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow (Post 12106988)

Ooooh, is that who that is? Makes sense now.

Originally Posted by smellypitts (Post 12108771)

Yep,you still can't prove games aren't staged.

Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 12106985)

Haha, Sweet Daddy Dumbass is saying I lack wisdom. :) That is rich.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 12108868)

I think it's that crazy bastard Chris616, or whatever the hell his username was. That was the type of crazy that hasn't been seen around here since, until Smellyshits showed up.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 12108868)

I think it's that crazy bastard Chris616, or whatever the hell his username was. That was the type of crazy that hasn't been seen around here since, until Smellyshits showed up.

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball (Post 12108878)

What's crazy is to think that suck ass bronco team could win a title without "help"

Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 12108839)

The burden of proof is on the accuser. We don't need to prove they don't cheat (you can't prove a negative anyway), you need to prove they do.

Originally Posted by smellypitts (Post 12108893)

That's a childish playground saying,there is no such thing here.

Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 12108898)

That "childish playground saying" is the basis of our entire legal system. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.