View Single Post
10-01-2011, 11:40 PM
Andy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,920
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

Again, you bring up the red herring argument.
So what you are telling me is that you can't explain why the Bruins, a team full of tough players and protectors, are in fact not protected from headshots and dirty plays.

It looks like you'll need to revise your theory because you have pretty significant evidence that runs against it.

If the Bruins get must mean they are soft right? That's what people have been telling me in this thread.

Lastly, I'm not diverting attention away from anything, your theory simply can't account for this big exception. Any theory that can't explain anything that counters it is a pretty terrible theory and is precisely why I don't subscribe to it. It's logically not sound and I'll show you why.

claim #1: Y happens because there is a lack of X
claim #2: wherever X is present, Y doesn't occur.
Conclusion: Therefore, acquire x to prevent y.

However we have instances where people do have X, yet Y still occurs, thus your conclusion is not a sound one. This leads me to believe that X doesn't prevent Y, you have to show me that it does.

So it's either you come up with some reason why people still get cheapshotted in the presence of protectors, enforcers and tough players or your theory is a bad one.

It's not a's a hole in your argument.

The only red-herring here is your post because your the only one trying to divert attention away from a very big problem in your argument.

Edit: I wrote the wrong letter in the conclusion.

Last edited by Andy: 10-01-2011 at 11:45 PM.
Andy is offline