Can someone explain to aboutfkntime

[aboutfkntime]

Oh, so you still haven't looked it up.

At this moment, I'm arguing with an ignorant person, that is why the conversation is going nowhere as your view is subjective and is based on your biases.

Try and think objectively, using logic and leave your biases out of your argument.

I understand this may be beyond your capabilities, but you are not even trying to learn at this moment.

no, this conversationg is going nowhere because.....

1) you are nothing but an excuse-making muppet

2) we are still waiting for you to provide a reason for suggesting that I research The Scotsman's Fallacy..... so we can get to the point

waiting for you to stop answering a question, with a question.....

tell me why YOU think that Golovkin said this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....

" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

and waiting for you to feed the elephant.....

[GGG Gloveking]

STOP TALKING UTTER BOLLOCKS !!!!!


Q. who the hell did Canelo win the WBC title off ?

A. a JMW, who weighed 153

if you think that Pac was a genuine JMW when he beat Margarito, let alone a genuine JMW champion..... then you should be tied up, p1ssed on, and dragged behind a horse

stop your ridiculous excuses, because I just spent a lot of time CLEARLY explaining how weight works

casual-fans are totally clueless about styles/levels/weight

and stop running around telling " a friend of mine " stories

if you need more help, just ask

tell me why YOU think that Golovkin said this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....

" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

answer the question, or STFU

You keep calling me ****** for not understanding what a genuine 'whatever the hell weight' is, but yet you can put your own definition into words. Giving me sh it like, it depends on the fighter.

And to answer the initial question, who did Canelo win the belt off? The answer is the WBC MW champ! Stop making excuses for two guys who made cognizant decisions to wear that strap.

The true Scotsman fallacy applies here absolutely perfectly. Even down to you not giving any objective rule to define your term. I've given you smoke opportunity to do so, yet you keep giving me vague answers like it's common sense, and knowledgeable observers don't need a roadmap. I mean, its textbook

[D4thincarnation]

no, this conversationg is going nowhere because.....

1) you are nothing but an excuse-making muppet

2) we are still waiting for you to provide a reason for suggesting that I research The Scotsman's Fallacy..... so we can get to the point

waiting for you to stop answering a question, with a question.....



and waiting for you to feed the elephant.....

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Explanation

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

There you go?

Do you understand that?

[aboutfkntime]

You keep calling me ****** for not understanding what a genuine 'whatever the hell weight' is, but yet you can put your own definition into words. Giving me sh it like, it depends on the fighter.

And to answer the initial question, who did Canelo win the belt off? The answer is the WBC MW champ! Stop making excuses for two guys who made cognizant decisions to wear that strap.

The true Scotsman fallacy applies here absolutely perfectly. Even down to you not giving any objective rule to define your term. I've given you smoke opportunity to do so, yet you keep giving me vague answers like it's common sense, and knowledgeable observers don't need a roadmap. I mean, its textbook

all I can say is, that you have utterly embarrassed yourself

you know little/nothing about boxing, I wonder why you are even here

you show no willingness to learn, and seem fixated with trying to get your pacifist client off on a technicality

a technicality that is utter nonsense to anyone knowledgable. or even keenly interested

you are an absolute excuse-making muppet..... and you have embarrassed yourself with your own ******ity.....

let's leave it there kid..... because, whilst you have been willing to fluff yourself up like a pea****, you have not been willing to be honest enough to answer a simple, reasonable, LOGICAL, question.....

tell me why YOU think that Golovkin said this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....

" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

[aboutfkntime]

There you go?

Do you understand that?

I asked you to make your point ?

there is no logical comparison to be made, so why did YOU suggest that I research The Scotsman's Fallacy?

explain why you think it is relevant ?



oh, and don't forget to answer this question, willya professor?

tell me why YOU think that Golovkin said this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....

" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

[aboutfkntime]

that poor.... hungry.... elephant





..... nobody cares about the small, and down-trodden

[D4thincarnation]

I asked you to make your point ?

there is no logical comparison to be made, so why did YOU suggest that I research The Scotsman's Fallacy?

explain why you think it is relevant ?



oh, and don't forget to answer this question, willya professor?

What is the criteria of being a middleweight?
Or any weight class for that matter?

Did you finish high school?

[aboutfkntime]

this is not the " Can someone explain to aboutfkntime " thread

this is the "let's find out who the casuals are, and embarrass them" thread

[aboutfkntime]

What is the criteria of being a middleweight?
Or any weight class for that matter?

Did you finish high school?

wow, you nailed those questions perfectly.....

no, wait.....


1)why is The Scotsman's Fallacy relevant ?

2) why did Golovkin say this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....
" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

3) why have you not fed the elephant ?




you are embarrassing yourself professor, answer the simple, reasonable, LOGICAL, questions..... lol

[D4thincarnation]

wow, you nailed those questions perfectly.....

no, wait.....


1)why is The Scotsman's Fallacy relevant ?

2) why did Golovkin say this about 159lb Kell Brook immediately following their fight.....
" he is not a middleweight, He just isn't " ~ Golovkin

3) why have you not fed the elephant ?





you are embarrassing yourself professor, answer the simple, reasonable, LOGICAL, questions..... lol

You have made the statement that Canelo is not a genuine middleweight?

Yet you have offered up nothing to support your view?

How do you think Golovkin saying Brook is not a middleweight make Canelo not be?

I've asked you for the criteria what it is to be a middleweight or any boxing weight class, so we can examine if your theory hold water.


At this moment, your stance is, I think this and then putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything.

That is why I asked about if you finished high school as it seems you may have mental deficiencies?

Are you on the autistic spectrum?