43-8 speaks loud and clear.

ApostleofGrief said:

the whole seahawks thing.... and this is serious.... I am seeing it happen in droves. Even to family members

DUCKIZATION

He's right you know.

The Ducks are just unbearable every time they win it all.

Tailgater said:

dnc said:

ApostleofGrief said:

the whole seahawks thing.... and this is serious.... I am seeing it happen in droves. Even to family members

DUCKIZATION

He's right you know.

The Ducks are just unbearable every time they win it all.

But when did the ducks win it all? Close counts for something, especially for duckfuckerizartion.

straw man..... talking about fans acting like Ducks, not if or if not they won a natty... don't straw man the Apostle..

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

It was obvious that the dew was playing havoc with Peyton's gloves. Also, being at such low elevation, Peyton couldn't adjust to the greater density of New York's atmosphere.

Be no means are most Seahawk fans like yuck fans. Here's a note from a Hawk fan here in Savannah that I watched the game with:

I watched the game at a party with about 50 people, all but three were Denver fans. Said nothing when everyone told us the Hawks had no chance. When we got up 15 - 0 I said, "They're in deep trouble." That's all. At 22 - 0 I gave a silent cut throat gesture to the crowd for Sherman. Followed by a one liner, "It's over." Never said another word after that in honor of Lynch.

If you don't know plenty of Hawk fans like this, consider who you hang out with. One in 100,000 bird fans could keep their gloating mouths shut like this.

hair-splitting

He_Needs_More_Time said:

ApostleofGrief said:

the whole seahawks thing.... and this is serious.... I am seeing it happen in droves. Even to family members

DUCKIZATION

Look I was all for comparing the Seahawks to the Ducks until Sunday. The Seahawks actually won the big game while Oregon hasn't.

Sorry, if anything you can compare the Seahawks fans to "Red Sox Nation".

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.

ApostleofGrief said:

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.