If you got Ladanian Tomlinson and a few of his closest friends...

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]


In this hypothetical, we know the players from the NFL have the perfect build to succeed playing rugby.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are begging the question here. Do we really know they have the "perfect" body for success at rugby? Because the Euros are saying the NFL guys are too bulky and sub-par stamina.

The issue is that they need to "bulk down", work on their stamina, and learn the game. Which, IMO, takes more than 6 months, but a lot less than 10 years. IMO.

[Jay Riall]

lmao I can't believe I read all that. For people that didn't, cliffnotes - he fails at trying to justify (intentionally) giving misleading information.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it simple, I posted a fact, and referred people to it who were interested in finding out more. And for that, people chose to ignore the fact, and instead go after ME because they don't like the manner in which I posted about it. Textbook ad hominem logical fallacy at work, and working hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

ill admit im not expert on the subject but i dont think ad hominem fallacy really works here. no one tried to invalidate your argument here bc it was you who said it. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

rather, many ppl supplied plenty of facts and arguments/opinions on why your "fact" did not have much bearing on the discussion.

moreso, for an ad hominem to be applied you would have had to make an argument which you have yet to do. as you have repeatedly said, you only posted a fact and no one has disputed that fact. just clarified it.

edit to say: when i called you a prick i was attacking you, not your argument (that im not so sure exists) nor your fact.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

ill admit im not expert on the subject but i dont think ad hominem fallacy really works here. no one tried to invalidate your argument here bc it was you who said it. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

rather, many ppl supplied plenty of facts and arguments/opinions on why your "fact" did not have much bearing on the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

One of those "facts" being your invalidation of my post because I am a "prick" and a "complete fraud".

[ QUOTE ]
when i called you a prick i was attacking you, not your argument (that im not so sure exists) nor your fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you were attacking me, not the substance of the assertion, which happened to be factual, in an attempt to invalidate it. Ad hominem 101.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ill admit im not expert on the subject but i dont think ad hominem fallacy really works here. no one tried to invalidate your argument here bc it was you who said it. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

rather, many ppl supplied plenty of facts and arguments/opinions on why your "fact" did not have much bearing on the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

One of those "facts" being your invalidation of my post because I am a "prick" and a "complete fraud".

[ QUOTE ]
when i called you a prick i was attacking you, not your argument (that im not so sure exists) nor your fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you were attacking me, not the substance of the assertion, which happened to be factual, in an attempt to invalidate it. Ad hominem 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. not at all. i was attacking you bc i wanted to insult you and piss you off.

had nothing to do with the assertion and im not sure why you think it would have.

ooh ooh, it sure if fun to play the "i didnt say that" game. amirite.

[prohornblower]

less bickering, more speculation about which country is better.

U S A! U S A! U S A! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
nope. not at all. i was attacking you bc i wanted to insult you and piss you off.


[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, because I slapped you around in the Bonds thread. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
cliffnotes - he fails at trying to justify (intentionally) giving misleading information.

[/ QUOTE ]

What information was intentionally misleading?

I referenced people interested in this debate to the story of the 1924 US Olympic team, which had won a gold medal, and then provided an excerpt from an article I read about it.

The excerpt:

[ QUOTE ]

The USA Olympic rugby team arrived in Paris on April 27, 1924. In the six months since the FOC's invitation, a squad of 22 superb athletes - including a slew of California football and basketball All-Americans -had been recruited and trained in San Francisco. Most of the players had never before played rugby, but coach Charlie Austin was relying on his team's size, speed, stamina, and raw athletic ability to compensate for its technical deficiencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, call me crazy, but considering the hypothetical involved a team of American football athletes being able to compete with the more experienced and established rugby teams from other countries, given only 6 months time preparation, I thought it was pretty interesting and somewhat similar that the 1924 team was comprimised of American football athletes who had never played rugby and given only 6 months to prepare, and they beat the French national team in the Olympics, in addition to playing a competitive match against Blackheath FC resulting in a 13-9 loss.

Now, I understand you may consider it "intentionally misleading" that I didn't mention that the 1924 Olympics only comprised 3 teams, but truth be told, I had no idea....if you'd like, here is a link to the article I took the excerpt from, and you'll see it makes no mention of there only being three teams.

In fact, the word "three" doesn't appear in the article at all, and the numeral 3 only appears in reference to scores and dates.

I'm sorry if you felt it intentionally misleading that I didn't research the article further via other sources to determine the amount of teams involved. I generally don't make it a practice to cross-check and then triple-cross check every source I reference for all possible collateral information on the internet when making a casual conversational post regarding sporting events on the interwebs.

I was sincerely posting a somewhat relevant similar situation to the one proposed in the hypothetical, especially considering that many folks had asserted such a situation as "impossible".....when in fact, something very similar already happened.

Not to mention, I didn't even assert any conclusions, other than referencing historical fact, so I'm not real sure why you find it misleading, especially intentionally.

Either way though, sorry you feel that way, Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nope. not at all. i was attacking you bc i wanted to insult you and piss you off.


[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, because I slapped you around in the Bonds thread. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

too bad you got owned in this thread for being intentionally misleading.

oh but wait, what was my accusation in that other thread? remember i wasnt the one arguing about bonds' steriod use. i was just trying to help you in that one, trying to be nice and said, hey, rb, ur arguments would be much better if you cleaned up and clarified your facts more.

[EWS87]

no rugby player could play in the nfl...any nfl player could play on the best rugby team in the world with minimal training