Just a thought but I'd think about leaving the word play to Lewis Carroll. Especially given the content of the message. If nobody has come forward with proof, why did you rep a post by someone saying they found someone? For the third time, it's Leroux.
Nobody has come forward with proof that LeRoux lied. You claim nobody has come forward with proof that chanting occurred. You don't believe her for the first statement, but support the second. I am trying, in vain, to teach you the lesson that most reasonable people already know. Absence of evidence in not evidence of absence, as has been stated in this thread a few times. The fact that nobody has proven that the statements occurred is not proof they they did not happen. The fact that nobody has proven LeRoux's statement as false also does not mean it is true. Now a normal unbiased person would react to the statements the same way, either believe both or neither. You've chosen to react differently with the same evidence, therefore your bias is evident. Oh, since you are so educated with fancy degrees you may also know this as argumentum ad ignorance (Argument of ignorance). Or "You cant prove what I say is false, so it is true." This behavior is pretty much frowned upon, just to be clear. Which is why I have been ridiculing your stance on this thread, as I have stated you have taken the only 'unproven' point and made it the only thing you care about. (Edit: And then assumed that your opinion is the only possible position for the unproven point.)And it is pretty much the only thing that doesn't matter. There is enough in LeRoux's statement without the 'chant' portion to warrant concern, to be blunt.
Enh! Wrong. You repped a post where someone said they found proof she didn't lie and then turned around and admitted there was none. Everything else is weasel words covering your tracks. Really. Wow. That's some high end processing there. Careful you don't blow an o-ring. Fourth time - Leroux. 800th time - I'm looking for evidence something was said in either stadium. Treatise to your hearts content.
You realize you are making yourself looks really silly? Yes, I repped a post where someone posted a a comment claiming they heard the chants. I then said "You claim nobody has come forward." Those two things do not contradict each other. Most likely you are just trying to use a strawman argument to take away from the actual point of each post. At this point you have had more words to make your point than LeRoux had, and are doing a far worse job of it. I think you are doing a fantastic job of proving it too. You are in pretty deep at this point, I'd wager. Keep digging the hole, I'll keep shoveling the dirt back in on ya. Deal?
Haha. It's funny that while disavowing Lewis Carroll you invoke the bellman's mantra in the Hunting of the Snark ( what I tell you three times is true). Very clever, but be careful. it's a Boojum. I'm starting to understand why it was subtitled ' An Agony in 8 Fits' you have the logic of the poem down perfectly. And it's an inventive way to take away the boredom of agumentum ad Nauseum ( 'a lie told often enough becomes true' ~ Lenin) I'll take the opportunity to review what you learned about logic, then. Actually, give him credit. He's applying most of what there is in logical fallacies. Another couple of posts and he'll have them all. Let's review: argumentum ad tu quoque and here is why. if telling us how disgusted you were isn't an emotional appeal, I'm not sure what is. Get over it. Toronto is ok, but it isn't that great a city anyway. The most fun of this ad Hominem argument is throwing it back at you. If I really wanted an emotional component, I might say I wish she had mooned the Voyageurs in addition to shushing them. Then you might have a valid point. BTW, is that McBreezy behind the guy frumiously flipping the universal #1 hand signal in her celebration photos? The man is a National hero. Then there is this logical fallacy: Ooh bad wording....lots of chanting happened, some of it not very Canadian. We heard it. It's on tape, not to mention it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. And, oh yeah, we have Berdman making sure we knew it happened. He even had the courtesy to include all the points in 140 characters. I really like the appeal to higher education Since you are a master logician, you will recognize it as the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy. It also qualifies as Ad Hominem, if used against others. Then there is also that it's unverifiable in this forum format. I'm not really sure which fallacy this makes it in Latin. The closest I can come is the informal fallacy of unverifiable statistics, but its really unverifiable credentials you are driving at. You could help. Maybe if your profs confirmed in a tweet.... Bingo! Congrats, you hit on an ad Hominem argument, though I suspect it was pure luck. You were probably going for argumentum ad auctoritatem. I'll give it to you anyway for effort. In the future, Dewey is a proper name. Glad you find some aspects of logic useful. Where does 'everyone knows she meant Toronto' fit into the truth trees? It fits as the logical fallacy of agumentum ad populum. You might also check the logical fallacy of petitio principii. ...Asks the man who can't use the verb to be when asking the all important question...(no credit. Sorry. It sounds like a bad 50's TV Indian. I hated that. The Mohawk Joseph Brant went to Dartmouth and Kings College - now Columbia.) But congrats anyway. BOOM! With just a little help, you hit the ad Hominem trifecta. Your next challenge is to get them all in one post. Think of it as a pub crawl of logic. I'll keep score.
Have to run to some training but just had an odd question and was wondering if you mind if I changed the topic for a moment... has anyone heard of anyone who heard any racist chanting in Vancouver or Toronto?
While you are training, see if you can recall Leroux saying anything at all about Toronto in her tweet.
Ask Sydney LeRoux, I think she may have mentioned it. If she didn't I know alot of people who will insist she did anyways.
Didn't see this link for more Canuck "homer" talk posted yet? My apologies if somebody already did. http://www.wakingthered.com/2013/6/...s-perspective-on-celebrations-and-nationality
Interesting article, if somewhat mistaken. Let me elaborate... "But choosing to play for the best country, over YOUR country, isn't a regretful moment, it is a life choice; and it is the wrong one." Yes Canadians WANT it to be her country, but she is a dual citizen so they are both HER country. She is playing for her country. And she could be a fan of both countries, but Canadians are making damn sure she has to forgive a lot of our actions if she does. And we look down on Americans... lol
Here is another perspective on shushing from Canadians. Apparently, if a Canadian does it to fans booing in another country, it's a rare treat and because she is a National treasure. Nobody called it "too Canadian for me" and it makes you wonder about her comment that she wouldn't have done it in Leroux place. Sinclair-and-the-shush http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?792-Sinclair-and-the-shush The goal Christine scored was in the 50th or 53rd or 54th minute, depending on what report you read, after Veronica Perez was sent off. It was a PK, not a breakaway goal. Women's soccer united has YouTube clips ( kinda choppy) of that game. Unfortunately, no shush. But there is a great clip of Perez pushing a Sinclair shot over the bar at full extension. Great goalkeeping. Unfortunately, the fact that she was a field player didn't sit well with the ref. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=HpUzOKyZzyU&desktop_uri=/watch?v=HpUzOKyZzyU And Sinclair did not receive a caution for her shush, according to the box score in the wiki for the 2010 Gold Cup.
Nah didn't recall anything, but I did recall learning the use of the word "or" when I was two. Canuck is pretty crass, kinda like Yankee. There's actually a lot of reasonably intelligent stuff that supports all sides. There's been a couple of good articles in the past week. Shushing, meh. People shush the crowd all the time in many sports. If anyone shushes an away crowd they get booed. Expected and no big deal. Same for Sinclair in Mexico. I wasn't a fan of it - nothing speaks louder than your play. But if she was born and grew up in Mexico City and taunted Mexican fans with a Canadian logo that would be of a little different context. If someone has video that show's that it's a hell of a clip alright. Given the missed call on the blatant PK ten minutes earlier, it's surprising she got the call right on the Veronica Perez hand ball. Perhaps she used her headset to ask her AR - Veronica Perez.
I've been wondering about the use of the term Canuck. I do not consider Yankee crass, but I don't know about Canuck. What I do know is that at a WC game here in Portland years ago, a former Portland Pilots player from Canada (not Sinclair) referred to herself, in conversation, as a Canuck. You Canadians -- is there a negative connotation to the term Canuck?
Only if you're not a fan of the Vancouver Canucks... which admittedly is probably around 87% of the population