steelerfury.com
http://steelerfury.com/forum/

Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)
http://steelerfury.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9602
Page 12 of 14

Author:  Jeemie [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

R S wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
We've actually lived to see the Steelers beat the Patriots when the Pats were at full strength.

2011 was not that long ago.

The reason I asked Swiss about Cleveland is by wishing lots of injuries on New England, you want to knock their talent level towards the lesser teams like Cleveland (OK...Cleveland was an exaggeration).

The only distinguishing characteristic would then be the uniforms they wear.



Whatever you personally feel about Lit going full bore logic here...you have to admit it's sweeter to beat the good teams than the bad teams precisely because the good teams are good.

You want to test your team's mettle against the best teams to prove YOU are the best.


Image


Why is it wrong?

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy a win against a weakened Pats' team...but I definitely enjoyed the 2011 win over them v the 2008 win.

Author:  Still Lit [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

swissvale72 wrote:
So let me get this straight, Lit. You spew bullshit...you sort of admit that it's bullshit...but according to the rules of the philosophy department, it stands until I definitively refute it.

That's good work if you can get it.


No Swiss, I do not in fact think it is BS. I was echoing your own language. I have provided arguments that advance conclusions about your position on rooting for injuries. Arguments you so far are unable to refute. If you do not like those conclusions, by all means, explain why the conclusions do not follow from the premises that advance them.

Definitvely refute? Who cares about definitive. You have yet to do anything to show why my arguments are poor at all, let alone definitively bad.

Instead, you keep deflecting by ranting about my profession. Who gives s fuck what you think about me or my profession. If you're going to claim my arguments are shit, show why.

You're all sound and fury. Show me the substance. Tell us why the arguments fail to secure the conclusions provided.

Author:  Still Lit [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

Jeemie wrote:
R S wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
We've actually lived to see the Steelers beat the Patriots when the Pats were at full strength.

2011 was not that long ago.

The reason I asked Swiss about Cleveland is by wishing lots of injuries on New England, you want to knock their talent level towards the lesser teams like Cleveland (OK...Cleveland was an exaggeration).

The only distinguishing characteristic would then be the uniforms they wear.



Whatever you personally feel about Lit going full bore logic here...you have to admit it's sweeter to beat the good teams than the bad teams precisely because the good teams are good.

You want to test your team's mettle against the best teams to prove YOU are the best.


Image


Why is it wrong?

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy a win against a weakened Pats' team...but I definitely enjoyed the 2011 win over them v the 2008 win.


Yes bc my first argument is unassailable. Wins against better opponents are more quality wins. It likely (according to my second argument) follows that those wins are more pleasurable.

Author:  COR-TEN [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

Image

Author:  swissvale72 [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

Still Lit wrote:
swissvale72 wrote:
So let me get this straight, Lit. You spew bullshit...you sort of admit that it's bullshit...but according to the rules of the philosophy department, it stands until I definitively refute it.

That's good work if you can get it.


No Swiss, I do not in fact think it is BS. I was echoing your own language. I have provided arguments that advance conclusions about your position on rooting for injuries. Arguments you so far are unable to refute. If you do not like those conclusions, by all means, explain why the conclusions do not follow from the premises that advance them.

Definitvely refute? Who cares about definitive. You have yet to do anything to show why my arguments are poor at all, let alone definitively bad.

Instead, you keep deflecting by ranting about my profession. Who gives s fuck what you think about me or my profession. If you're going to claim my arguments are shit, show why.

You're all sound and fury. Show me the substance. Tell us why the arguments fail to secure the conclusions provided.


I'm not ranting about your profession, Lit; I'm ranting about YOU within your profession. Notice I say nothing negative about your fellow college professors, Hesske & Stosh. You think that might have something to do with those two guys not being full of shit, not spewing endless mumbo-jumbo? Again, you make a statement and then contend it's true unless someone proves you wrong. Burden of proof is on you, Egghead.

All you've proven is that beating a team that's playing at full strength might be more pleasurable for you. And, that you place a higher priority on your enjoyment of the game than your team, y'know, actually winning the game.

And don't think you're twisting the argument hasn't gone unnoticed. I never suggested that beating the Patriots wasn't a bigger deal than beating the Browns. I DID say that beating the Patriots with their best players perhaps injured wasn't going to diminish my enjoy of that win one single bit. And given that those injuries, part of the game, increase my team's chances of winning, I'll be rooting for those injuries. And, given your position that that's pussy fandom, well....the geeky professor must think there's plenty of pussies on this esteemed website. Check out the OP in the other forum. It's not exactly scientific, but it's a far cry more legit than your simply stating your personal preference.

Author:  Jobus Rum [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

2011 was a looooooong time ago...

Author:  Y-Town Steel [ Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

Jobus Rum wrote:
2011 was a looooooong time ago...

6 years. Also time is relative.

You're welcome.

Author:  Still Lit [ Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

swissvale72 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
swissvale72 wrote:
So let me get this straight, Lit. You spew bullshit...you sort of admit that it's bullshit...but according to the rules of the philosophy department, it stands until I definitively refute it.

That's good work if you can get it.


No Swiss, I do not in fact think it is BS. I was echoing your own language. I have provided arguments that advance conclusions about your position on rooting for injuries. Arguments you so far are unable to refute. If you do not like those conclusions, by all means, explain why the conclusions do not follow from the premises that advance them.

Definitvely refute? Who cares about definitive. You have yet to do anything to show why my arguments are poor at all, let alone definitively bad.

Instead, you keep deflecting by ranting about my profession. Who gives s fuck what you think about me or my profession. If you're going to claim my arguments are shit, show why.

You're all sound and fury. Show me the substance. Tell us why the arguments fail to secure the conclusions provided.


I'm not ranting about your profession, Lit; I'm ranting about YOU within your profession. Notice I say nothing negative about your fellow college professors, Hesske & Stosh. You think that might have something to do with those two guys not being full of shit, not spewing endless mumbo-jumbo? Again, you make a statement and then contend it's true unless someone proves you wrong. Burden of proof is on you, Egghead.

All you've proven is that beating a team that's playing at full strength might be more pleasurable for you. And, that you place a higher priority on your enjoyment of the game than your team, y'know, actually winning the game.

And don't think you're twisting the argument hasn't gone unnoticed. I never suggested that beating the Patriots wasn't a bigger deal than beating the Browns. I DID say that beating the Patriots with their best players perhaps injured wasn't going to diminish my enjoy of that win one single bit. And given that those injuries, part of the game, increase my team's chances of winning, I'll be rooting for those injuries. And, given your position that that's pussy fandom, well....the geeky professor must think there's plenty of pussies on this esteemed website. Check out the OP in the other forum. It's not exactly scientific, but it's a far cry more legit than your simply stating your personal preference.


More ranting and BS.

I gave three arguments that advance three conclusions about your position on rooting for injuries. Please point out where I twisted anything.

You STILL have yet to show why the premises that advance those conclusions are unsound or why the conclusions do not follow from the premises given. All you continue to do is merely assert without argument that the conclusions are wrong.

Since you are unwilling and, more likely, unable to show why the premises are unsound or why the conclusions do not follow from the premises, any other pussy fan is welcome to show why I am wrong.

All sound and fury, no substance.

I'm laughing at you because you continue to insist that I am merely declaring myself right. I gave arguments, not assertions. And if you think my conclusions are full of shit, please, show us why the conclusions are wrong. Don't just say they are. Explain why I am wrong.

Now, you're under no obligation to show why I am wrong. You can just move to other topics on the board if you like. I'm such a joke to you seems odd you keep returning to this thread. But you have done fuck all to show why my arguments are wrong.

Author:  randomsteelerfan [ Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

R S wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Jobus Rum wrote:
Hard to say...if the Steelers ever, you know, actually beat the Pats, well...


We've actually lived to see the Steelers beat the Patriots when the Pats were at full strength.

2011 was not that long ago.

The reason I asked Swiss about Cleveland is by wishing lots of injuries on New England, you want to knock their talent level towards the lesser teams like Cleveland (OK...Cleveland was an exaggeration).

The only distinguishing characteristic would then be the uniforms they wear.



Whatever you personally feel about Lit going full bore logic here...you have to admit it's sweeter to beat the good teams than the bad teams precisely because the good teams are good.

You want to test your team's mettle against the best teams to prove YOU are the best.


Image


First, this GIF makes me throw up in my mouth and want to punch the screen.

Second, unless I'm missing something, the comments are spot on. Beating the Patriots or any quality team is undoubtedly more satisfying than beating weaker opponents.

Author:  swissvale72 [ Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Round the League (only stuff we give a shit about)

I'm laughing at you, lit...as I'm no longer kidding about your mumbo jumbo
but serious about you being totally full of shit. You've proven nothing. Feel free to argue that you have

Page 12 of 14 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/