https://clips.twitch.tv/MildArtsyTofuImGlitch-Qpjc2PZuu5Bary0x
0
Stop crying abut Ange1
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
jimjam789 [#2]'drx got lucky because we didnt prepare' is the same statement as 'drx got lucky'
no its not "drx got lucky" would mean they weren't the better team on that day and just won some lucky clutches... they got lucky we didn't have time to prepare is just saying no time made it easy for them to win.
mave [#3]no its not "drx got lucky" would mean they weren't the better team on that day and just won some lucky clutches... they got lucky we didn't have time to prepare is just saying no time made it easy for them to win.
the statement 'drx got lucky' doesnt specify a reason, your reasoning is pure speculation on whether the person saying 'drx got lucky' meant it in that way
mave [#3]no its not "drx got lucky" would mean they weren't the better team on that day and just won some lucky clutches... they got lucky we didn't have time to prepare is just saying no time made it easy for them to win.
consider the statements 'i get no bitches' and 'i get no bitches cuz im ugly'. does the reasoning change the fact that i get no bitches? likewise, angels reasoning doesnt change the fact that 'drx got lucky'
jimjam789 [#6]consider the statements 'i get no bitches' and 'i get no bitches cuz im ugly'. does the reasoning change the fact that i get no bitches? likewise, angels reasoning doesnt change the fact that 'drx got lucky'
actual true statement with good logic
jimjam789 [#6]consider the statements 'i get no bitches' and 'i get no bitches cuz im ugly'. does the reasoning change the fact that i get no bitches? likewise, angels reasoning doesnt change the fact that 'drx got lucky'
dsaedas
jimjam789 [#6]consider the statements 'i get no bitches' and 'i get no bitches cuz im ugly'. does the reasoning change the fact that i get no bitches? likewise, angels reasoning doesnt change the fact that 'drx got lucky'
It doesnt change that fact, but the context gives it a completely different connotation. If someone says “mussolini was right”, you’d be correct in calling them stupid, but if they actually said: “mussolini was right when he said sentinels is washed” then its a different thing
GLN321 [#9]It doesnt change that fact, but the context gives it a completely different connotation. If someone says “mussolini was right”, you’d be correct in calling them stupid, but if they actually said: “mussolini was right when he said sentinels is washed” then its a different thing
this is the worst analogy ever LMAO holy shit
jimjam789 [#6]consider the statements 'i get no bitches' and 'i get no bitches cuz im ugly'. does the reasoning change the fact that i get no bitches? likewise, angels reasoning doesnt change the fact that 'drx got lucky'
Bro is intelligent and destroyed him oh my god
GLN321 [#9]It doesnt change that fact, but the context gives it a completely different connotation. If someone says “mussolini was right”, you’d be correct in calling them stupid, but if they actually said: “mussolini was right when he said sentinels is washed” then its a different thing
LMAO
GLN321 [#9]It doesnt change that fact, but the context gives it a completely different connotation. If someone says “mussolini was right”, you’d be correct in calling them stupid, but if they actually said: “mussolini was right when he said sentinels is washed” then its a different thing
Analogy sucks, the connotation in the original was __happened because __ , but yours is that __ was right because he said ___, which was true. Totally different.
Docta [#14]Analogy sucks, the connotation in the original was __happened because __ , but yours is that __ was right because he said ___, which was true. Totally different.
Thats semantics that doesnt affect the meaning of the analogy, but if you really wanted it to fit, all you have to do is change “mussolini was right” to “the fact that mussolini was right”
GLN321 [#12]Its a genius analogy!
ah yes, using an analogy with no conditional statement is the same as an analogy with an actual conditional statement!
peppreish [#16]ah yes, using an analogy with no conditional statement is the same as an analogy with an actual conditional statement!
You’re purposely focusing on the semantics of the analogy instead of the purpose behind it, but still, check #15
jimjam789 [#5]the statement 'drx got lucky' doesnt specify a reason, your reasoning is pure speculation on whether the person saying 'drx got lucky' meant it in that way
he said on twitter that they were lucky they hadn't gotten time to prepare.
GLN321 [#17]You’re purposely focusing on the semantics of the analogy instead of the purpose behind it, but still, check #15
analogies rely entirely on semantics what are you talking about? ange1 saying 'drx got lucky we didn't prepare" is implying that if fpx prepared then drx would have lost. now compare that to your shit analogy where it's literally you saying "sentinels are washed". the initial analogy is a hypothetical cause and effect scenario, where yours is simply just a subjective statement from someone with no conditional statement
GLN321 [#9]It doesnt change that fact, but the context gives it a completely different connotation. If someone says “mussolini was right”, you’d be correct in calling them stupid, but if they actually said: “mussolini was right when he said sentinels is washed” then its a different thing
those are not equivalent statements to the drx statement because to assume the person saying 'mussolini was right' is stupid assumes there is a known fact that mussolini was wrong. equating ur statement to the drx statement would assume drx didnt get lucky, which we dont know as they havent faced off against each other with a completed roster. equating ur statement to my get no bitches statement assumes i do actually get bitches which we again dont know so ur example doesnt really fit. i do get what ur trying to say tho, but no matter the reasoning after "drx got lucky ____" it connotates negatively regardless of context.
peppreish [#19]analogies rely entirely on semantics what are you talking about? ange1 saying 'drx got lucky we didn't prepare" is implying that if fpx prepared then drx would have lost. now compare that to your shit analogy where it's literally you saying "sentinels are washed". the initial analogy is a hypothetical cause and effect scenario, where yours is simply just a subjective statement from someone with no conditional statement
Jesus you’re an actual keyboard warrior and cant a joke, but ok. I didnt say analogies rely on semantics, I said that semantics arent the purpose of analogies and arent what people should be looking at when seeing one, and should instead focus on if the analogy makes sense from a conceptual pov. If, as suggested, you change my analogy to “the fact that mussolini was right happened because of the fact that mussolini said sentinels is washed”. That includes a cause and effect scenario, because it implies that if mussolini hadnt said that sentinels is washed then he wouldnt be right. Happy now?
jimjam789 [#21]those are not equivalent statements to the drx statement because to assume the person saying 'mussolini was right' is stupid assumes there is a known fact that mussolini was wrong. equating ur statement to the drx statement would assume drx didnt get lucky, which we dont know as they havent faced off against each other with a completed roster. equating ur statement to my get no bitches statement assumes i do actually get bitches which we again dont know so ur example doesnt really fit. i do get what ur trying to say tho, but no matter the reasoning after "drx got lucky ____" it connotates negatively regardless of context.
Of course, I dont think theres any context where saying “mussolini was right” should be taken seriously, and neither do I hold as absolute fact that sentinels is washed. Its a joke made analogy. Thanks for engaging in good faith
Mdkns [#18]he said on twitter that they were lucky they hadn't gotten time to prepare.
i know that, the guy above is interpretting the lone statement 'drx got lucky' as drx not being the better team when in reality the statement could mean many things including the meaning behind 'drx got lucky because we didnt prepare' as well
GLN321 [#22]Jesus you’re an actual keyboard warrior and cant a joke, but ok. I didnt say analogies rely on semantics, I said that semantics arent the purpose of analogies and arent what people should be looking at when seeing one, and should instead focus on if the analogy makes sense from a conceptual pov. If, as suggested, you change my analogy to “the fact that mussolini was right happened because of the fact that mussolini said sentinels is washed”. That includes a cause and effect scenario, because it implies that if mussolini hadnt said that sentinels is washed then he wouldnt be right. Happy now?
still doesn't work regarding the situation, but that's fine. you just don't understand. we all struggle in certain things, it's cool
X_ae_A_12 [#20]DRX fans are obviously biased. ANGE1 will be hated till the end of time. SAD!
eu fake flagger like u will always defend dum pros like him obv
pitchfork [#4]he could just say "we didn't have enough time to prepare” or "if suygetsu here the results would be different" and still delivering the same exact meaning
as simple as that
That would kinda udermine Seider though, and he did the best he could do as a sub.
Discord