The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[THAY3R]

HOW THE [censored] IS HE A LAWYER JESUS [censored] CHRIST WHAT STATE DO YOU PRACTICE IN FOR [censored] SAKE EVERYONE MOVE OUT PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[kyleb]

Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[MyTurn2Raise]

I'm mush more scared for teh children with thayer, kyleb, and redbean arguing on an internet forum than drewdevil being a lawyer

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
BRAND IT

[/ QUOTE ]

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mush more scared for teh children with thayer, kyleb, and redbean arguing on an internet forum than drewdevil being a lawyer

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the three of them were to have a kid together? You know, like that money Twinz, with danny devito and the govenator? Man, that'd be some crazy kid. And what if it happened just like in the movie and there were two kids, and the Shwartzenager one, with all the good genes was just a normal guy? Man, that'd be cool.

[Pudge714]

BTW if the Cleveland Indians win the WS they should brand the trophy. Rafael Betancourt is a cheater. This is a fact.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

What about when teams win games because of bad calls, should those not count? Even if Bonds was on steroids and it was proved 100% beyond reasonable doubt, then the homeruns he hit still took place. If he breaks the policies, he is suspended, I don't see any logical reason to discount games that already happened. Look at the Super Bowl, it doesn't determine the best team that year, its just a tournament (its main purpose is just entertainment). You shouldn't take sports so seriously.

edit: my point about the super bowl might not be clear. you can never say that someone is the best player and you can never clearly judge two players against eachother. Bonds has the most homeruns but there are a bunch of other factors you have to consider, many that were already mentioned such as: modern medicine and health knowledge, the level of competition in the past vs now, the introduction of foreign players in the league, world war II, etc.

records, stats, and world championship are all pretty silly for this reason.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, do YOU think semantics means?

I think it means focusing on meanings, forms, or interpretations of words instead of the argument itself.

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds used steroids. Redbean asks "how do you define a steroid? What kind of steroid? When was this alleged use? Etc."

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds "juiced." Redbean's answer is that Bonds hasn't violated the MLB policy, etc.

Now that is the pluperfect definition of semantical argumentation right there. Everything is about definitions, meanings and interpretations for Redbean. He answers the question he wants to answer, not the question asked, using definitions, meanings, and interpretations.

Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

So before you accuse me of not knowing what semantics are, perhaps you should look it up.

Edit: Prediction: now kyleb will start arguing the merits of the above examples, and not whether or not they were semantical arguments, and someone else will think I've been PWNED again. (sighh...)

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok you are the lawyer, but in baseball there is a union, does a memo from the owners/commish have the power to actually prohibit something from a legal standpoint, also given that the substances "banned" weren't listed out, does that mean it applies to everything that could fit under the category?

I was pretty sure that it doesn't and given that the next CBA after the memo, left steroids off of the banned substances list that at that point the memo was worthless(except for witchhunting perhaps)

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe thats an example.