Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Teen Driver Killed Trying to Save Petrol
View Single Post
Old 09-11-2009, 11:11 PM   #29
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Teen Driver Killed Trying to Save Petrol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
I already explained how I didn't.

If you won't understand that then cool for you.

If you can't understand that then still cool for you. You probably have something "wrong" with your ever-so-cognitive brain.
And I already explained how you did. It here, I'll show you again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
But the idea of it sounds fun. Stop your car in the middle of a highway, try to dodge other cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour.........etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
1.) "Stopping" your car is the same as turning the engine off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Wait, wut? You just said you couldn't "stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible." (And you specifically specified to Mal that you meant stop the engine when you say 'stop the car') And then later in the same paragraph said that it would be possible.

Contradict yourself much? And you wonder why people don't get what the fuck you're talking about? Or why people say you're trying to weasel out of shit when you talk yourself in circles? Wow.
See that last paragraph in the last quote there? That's what I was talking about. I was perfectly correct. It's not us being incapable of understanding something. It's you sucking at communicating. You go and tell us "Stopping the car = turning the engine off" then in that last quoted post of yours you say "I couldn't STOP THE CAR (Which you, as you can see, stated to mean turning the engine off) and try to dodge as that would be impossible." And in that same paragraph talk about how it is possible to do exactly what you just stated to be impossible.

Now, if you meant "stopping the car" the way Mal was using stop the car as, which is actually stopping the car, then you were using the same phrase to mean two totally different scenarios. Of course we'll get confused, and at no fault of our own. That doesn't mean you didn't contradict yourself though. Because you did no matter what. You can't explain how you didn't, because you did. Only thing you can do is explain that you didn't intentionally do so, or why you mistakenly did, etc. You can't take back the contradiction from happening though. So I was right. You contradicted yourself. Game over.
Quote:
And I'm talking about how people make contradictions all the time. lol. It wasn't exactly part of the argument. It branched from "contradiction" being my favorite word. But you could always answer the question: "Is it a reasonable one?"
Doesn't matter. All irrelevant. I was right. End.

Quote:
I wasn't apologizing.
You should. You're unjustifiably calling us tarts and overall being a douche, when we're right. So unless you want to be a little immature baby about it, along with being wrong, you definitely should apologize.


Quote:
I wasn't saying it was not an anology. Yes there is a similarity between the two. But it doesn't prove anything.

What were you trying to prove from the statement? That not calling someone who didn't know about the steering wheel thing stupid is like not calling someone who doesn't know you need to breath air stupid. Yet, when I question this flawed statement, you counteract with saying: "In both cases they didn't know something vital to their survival." And that, proves the similarity.....which proves that it is an analogy. But it was still a simple minded, logically flawed statement. As there is a considerable difference between not knowing that you need air to live and not knowing that a steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only when using certain breaks? Making it even more plausible that this info could have passed by him without him knowing. Unlike the breathing air thing. What I'm saying is, if you see a teenager who doesn't know that humans need to breath air to live, you have much more of a right to call him stupid than someone who didn't know some basic info on a car. Why is that? Because it is a commonly known fact that you need air to breath. You'd have to really be stupid not to know. And while this lock up thing might be common, it isn't nearly as common as the breathing thing. Not NEARLY. Therefore, Not knowing you need to breath air = More stupid than not knowing that the steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. Definitely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stupid. And remember, I was going under the assumption that you were using that definition of stupid. The more harsher one.
This doesn't prove anything. Even if what you're saying is true (Protip: It's not, but it doesn't matter so I won't waste time on it), and one is more stupid than the other, they're both still stupid. To what degree they're stupid would be irrelevant. If you can call one stupid, then you can call the other stupid. Just like if I put my hand in a 200 degree oven I can say it's hot, even though a 1000 degree oven is hotter. And the purpose of my analogy was to show both are stupid, making it an adequate analogy.

And you're even admitting to judging my statement based on a definition I wasn't even using to begin with.

Quote:
Yeah but didn't you use extra strength stupid? Isn't that supposed to apply to the other definition: people with low cognitive processess, and a slow mind? The more harsher one, I would presume.
Why? One can't be really fucking careless or really fucking unintelligent? You assumed wrong. Again.

You made a poor assumption and tried calling me on shit based off your shit assumption. Even going so far to insult my intelligence and whatnot. You're not only completely wrong, but you were being a douchebag about it as well. You blathered on about gentlemen. How about actually demonstrating some gentlemanly behavior by admitting you were in the wrong and apologizing?
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
zer0systm (09-12-2009)