+1WebFire;951355 wrote:Wow. Subject aside, this could be the worst analogy of anything I have ever seen.
It's a perfect analogy. God cannon be proven, yet you have billions of dolts who use the indefensible "Well if he doesn't exist then prove it!". Pretty laughable.WebFire;951355 wrote:Wow. Subject aside, this could be the worst analogy of anything I have ever seen.
But neither side can be proven.sleeper;951435 wrote:It's a perfect analogy. God cannon be proven, yet you have billions of dolts who use the indefensible "Well if he doesn't exist then prove it!". Pretty laughable.
SMH. That was the entire point of the analogy.WebFire;951530 wrote:But neither side can be proven.
Argumentum ex silentio.Tobias Fünke;951163 wrote:No, that is how it works. Take a ****ing law class you clown. You are accusing Notre Dame of paying the Sullivan family to say that they didn't want Notre Dame's money. YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT.
You're a ****ing joke.
So your university is responsible for a young person's death, and because we are pointing that out we are the low ones?sherm03;951582 wrote:I just have never understood the need to go on an internet message board with the sole intent of starting **** to get under people's skin. But using a young kid's death to do that is pretty low, even for some of the people on here.
A year after the fact just to piss us Notre Dame fans off using more incorrect information than correct? I think it's pretty fucking low.SportsAndLady;951598 wrote:So your university is responsible for a young person's death, and because we are pointing that out we are the low ones?
Ya well this isn't a fuckin courtroom, sooooTobias Fünke;951579 wrote:Oh get the **** out of here. In any courtroom in the country sleeper would get laughed at.
How about "because the Sullivan's said that they were not paid, you have to prove that they were or else you lose the case." That's how this would o down.
There is nothing in the world you can truly be 100% certain on, but that's why a burden of proof exists. Without sleeper coming up with everything, any person with half of a brain would come to the conclusion that the Sullivan's are telling the truth.
EDIT: he can't even say why it would behoove them. They clearly could have asked for any amount of money from them, and Notre Dame already admitted guilt and was guilty in the eyes of OSHA.....so why keep quiet? Notre Dame already lost.
So Jim Tressel is an ax murderer? So Braxton Miller molests children?SportsAndLady;951603 wrote:Ya well this isn't a fuckin courtroom, soooo
"Trying to piss us Notre Dame fans off" lol when have I ever tried to piss ND fans off? Mayyyyybe once in my life, but I've probably tried to piss off Ole Miss fans once in my life before; it's sports. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm just pointing out how shady this whole situation was. I mean come on, "maximum fine" is the punishment? No one's head rolled at ND? That can't happen..Tobias Fünke;951602 wrote:A year after the fact just to piss us Notre Dame fans off using more incorrect information than correct? I think it's pretty ****ing low.
I fail to see the comparison thereTobias Fünke;951605 wrote:So Jim Tressel is an ax murderer? So Braxton Miller molests children?
Are you really being this ignorant right now?
If by your university, you mean, the school whose athletic teams I cheer for...then OK.SportsAndLady;951598 wrote:So your university is responsible for a young person's death, and because we are pointing that out we are the low ones?
That sleeper is making claims with no evidence and you are saying his baseless opinion stands?SportsAndLady;951618 wrote:I fail to see the comparison there
I simply pointed out a fallacy in your argument..nothing more, nothing less.Tobias Fünke;951636 wrote:That sleeper is making claims with no evidence and you are saying his baseless opinion stands?
No, you didn't. I said he had the burden of proof in this case and you said he didn't need it. That is just dumb.SportsAndLady;951640 wrote:I simply pointed out a fallacy in your argument..nothing more, nothing less.
THIS ISN'T A COURTROOMTobias Fünke;951654 wrote:No, you didn't. I said he had the burden of proof in this case and you said he didn't need it. That is just dumb.
Well no shit but anyone who makes such a statement needs to have some proof or it means nothing.SportsAndLady;951687 wrote:THIS ISN'T A COURTROOM
So I can't say that OJ killed Nicole Simpson? I can't just say that, not with any proof or anything--just simply think that OJ killed her? I have to have detailed proof? I can't make my own judgments?Tobias Fünke;951716 wrote:Well no **** but anyone who makes such a statement needs to have some proof or it means nothing.