Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayrra
First of all, before I even get started, there are two ways to interpret "stop your car."
|
No shit (Actually, not really. But you're using two different meanings for the phrase. So for argument's sake, no shit). Thing is, you specified exactly which one you were using. To turn around and use it differently in the same discussion is poor communication skills on your part. I don't see how you're not getting this.
Quote:
Wow, just wow. Lmao. In that statement, I was referring to why it would be more logical for Mal to assume that stopping your car meant "turning the engine off" in my original sentence. So, let me show you that sentence again:
Do you understand how I did NOT contradict myself? I was explaining to Mal why I wouldn't have meant that. Becuase using his assumption, stopping the car and dodging would be impossible. But using my "meaning", it IS possible to stop the car and dodge (because stopping the car doesn't mean to literally stop the breaks from moving, it means to stop the car from running, as in turning it off.) Do you see now? I love contradictions period, but because of that most of my contradictions are on purpose. I rarely contradict myself by accident. I know what I was saying. And it made sense.
I already explained above.
|
First off, that quote was a response to me, not Mal. I said:"
You can't exactly do that if you turn the engine off either...So no matter how you try to weasel out of it, the statement you made doesn't make sense. You can't stop your car/engine/whatever and dodge."
"That" referring dodging cars with the engine off. The entire quote of yours reads:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by You
Which is the problem with the fucking plan in the first place. Holy shit. I only said try to dodge it. I never said actually dodge it. 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.
|
"Which was the problem with the fucking plan in the first place." Referring to your original statement of trying to dodge cars after stopping your car. Which you specified to Mal that you mean "stopping the engine" when you said that. So what you're saying in this quote, right here, is that "That's the problem with my original plan. I said TRY to dodge, not actually dodge cars. AS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. However, it would be POSSIBLE because blah blah." That is how a person with good reading comprehension would read that. Because that is exactly what it says.
If you didn't mean it that way, then okay. Your bad. I understand. But that is what it SAYS. Hence, the contradiction. I'm not saying it was intentional. I'm not saying you're necessarily a fucking moron for that alone. You might have walked away from your keyboard for a bit, came back, and continued typing without realizing exactly what you wrote. I do it sometimes myself. Could all be a simple mistake. All I'm saying there is a contradiction in what you wrote. And there is. Is it really that big of a deal to admit that you slipped up? It doesn't mean anything besides the fact that I was right when I said there's a contradiction. But I'm right about a lot of things. So that isn't a big deal either.
Quote:
|
Even if I did misunderstand you, I don't deem it that much of a misunderstanding enough that I should apologize. And I was just saying "fucking hell tarts." Not calling you all hell tarts. Like when you say, "fucking hell!" when you are mad. I was simple saying a statement because I was "mad." Not calling you tarts. And wasn't I the one defending someone who died? And I'm the douche? Not in my book. And my book is the only one I read.
|
I'd say the constant mocking, lulz........wow type bullshit, questioning my ability to use a word correctly, etc. is apology worthy considering the fact that I wasn't being stupid at all during the entire discussion. You, on the other hand, made poor assumptions and were wrong on at least more than one occasion. If a misunderstanding on my part caused me to act like a dick to someone, I'd definitely apologize considering I'd have no good reason for being a dick at all. But I actually have some moral integrity. So whatever.
Quote:
|
Ridiculous. There's no way that you can argue that now-a-days if someone (mainly a teen) were not to know they need to breath air to live it would be less stupid than someone (mainly a teen) who didn't know about the steering wheel thing. No way in hell. The info would just be too easily accessed. Like I said, that air thing is just a more common fact. To not know it would be way more stupid than to not know the steering wheel locks up. You are more likely to learn it by your parents telling you as you are growing up. Come on, now.
|
I could argue it easily. I don't know why you keep underestimating me. I've proven time and time again that I can back up my arguments quite well against you. If you'll man up and admit I'm right about the other silly things you're trying to argue about already, like the contradiction thing above, then I'll be happy to indulge you further. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Quote:
I knew you were going to say that, but I thought it would just be : "Both are stupid, and that is the similarity." Anyway, my response would be this:
I thought you meant the other definition, so it is only natural for me to assume the statement was flawed. Because when regarding the other def. the difference between how stupid they are does matter. lol. But it doesn't matter because:
Yes. Which is why there is not much more for us to argue about.
|
A simple "My bad, sorry" would suffice. At least you finally seem to get the purpose of my analogy, anyway. I guess that's a plus.
Quote:
|
If he was really fucking unintelligent then most likely he has very low cognitive processes. = The more harsher one. Most likely the same with the really fucking carelessness too (though it could just be that he doesn't care and there isn't anything slow about his cognitive processess).
|
No. Again, just a very poor assumption on your part. The phrase I used fits perfectly with the definition I supplied. There was no error on my part regarding any word usage.
Quote:
|
I was trying to defend the death of this teen. I could care less about "winning" against you.
|
I didn't say anything about winning, but regardless, you failed on both of those fronts.
Quote:
|
What, because I said there is probably something wrong with you ever-so-cognitive brain? You can still be intelligent and have something wrong with your brain. Look at the Joker. Oh, wait, he isn't real. lol. I'm sure that you can be crazy and intelligent, though.
|
Except there isn't any indication that there is anything wrong with my brain either. As there was nothing presented I couldn't understand, nor was there anything I failed to understand.
Quote:
|
There's a problem with that, however. Number one, you supposedly aren't a girl. And two, even if you were, I'm not a gentlemen. I'll admit I made a wrong assumption. But that's all. I'm really not that bad of a guy, like I told sugoi. But that is left up to the individual person to decide (therfore, it'll change per person). So there's no point in arguing about that either. You'll always have your opinion about my personality, and there's no point in me trying to change that. Or rather, I don't think I should be trying to change it.
|
I don't see how what gender I am has anything to do with being a decent person. If you go so far as to imply another person is wrong, when he made no error and it was you that was mistaken all along, then the courteous thing to do would be to apologize to him. Even though I'm quite the asshole, I'd apologize if I was wrongly accusing someone of being mistaken. Which is exactly what you did here. It has nothing to do with changing someone's opinion. You should want to do it because it's the right thing to do. Is apologizing for being wrong really that big of a deal anyway? I never have a problem with apologizing to someone when I was in the wrong during a discussion. And I'm a pretty prideful dude. What's the big deal? Afraid that I'll gloat about it or something? You've already admitted that you were wrong about multiple things. If I wanted to rub my superior debating skills in your face then I could already do it. Why not just man up already? There's nothing to lose in doing so. You'd only be showing you have some integrity about you.
09-12-2009, 04:35 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
