You mad bro? Sounds like someone has finally made the decision to take your car keys away from you.
You're just another arrogant bird flying high above the trailer trash migratories. Come's with the insufferable Emerald turf tread by Dawgs and Hawks alike.
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.
The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.
Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.
Example ( Tom is using a barrage of objections): Amy: Tomatoes are fruit, not vegetable. Tom: Tomatoes can't be fruit. They don't grow on trees. Amy: But pineapples also don't grow on trees and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are used in salads. Amy: Apples are also used in salads and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are of botanical order Solanales.
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.
The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.
Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.
Example ( Tom is using a barrage of objections): Amy: Tomatoes are fruit, not vegetable. Tom: Tomatoes can't be fruit. They don't grow on trees. Amy: But pineapples also don't grow on trees and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are used in salads. Amy: Apples are also used in salads and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are of botanical order Solanales.
If you can't see the difference between winning it all and popping it off and never winning it all and popping up, then no one can help you.
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.
The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.
Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.
Example ( Tom is using a barrage of objections): Amy: Tomatoes are fruit, not vegetable. Tom: Tomatoes can't be fruit. They don't grow on trees. Amy: But pineapples also don't grow on trees and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are used in salads. Amy: Apples are also used in salads and are fruit. Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are of botanical order Solanales.
If you can't see the difference between winning it all and popping it off and never winning it all and popping up, then no one can help you.
Exactly! Seahawks fans, 12's, Hooks, etc have a right to talk shit and pop off. They just won a fucking championship.
Oregon fans pop off and haven't won a championship so they just come off as fucktards. Seahawk fans were in that same boat until Sunday.
Like I said Red Sox nation in 2004 is more today Seahawks fan.
Comments
Sorry, if anything you can compare the Seahawks fans to "Red Sox Nation".
You're just another arrogant bird flying high above the trailer trash migratories. Come's with the insufferable Emerald turf tread by Dawgs and Hawks alike.
The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.
Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.
Example ( Tom is using a barrage of objections):
Amy: Tomatoes are fruit, not vegetable.
Tom: Tomatoes can't be fruit. They don't grow on trees.
Amy: But pineapples also don't grow on trees and are fruit.
Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are used in salads.
Amy: Apples are also used in salads and are fruit.
Tom: Tomatoes still can't be fruit. They are of botanical order Solanales.
Oregon fans pop off and haven't won a championship so they just come off as fucktards. Seahawk fans were in that same boat until Sunday.
Like I said Red Sox nation in 2004 is more today Seahawks fan.