NKVD
Cossack
beat you yeah but it was clean...no headshot...
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
NHL CFC Playoffs Pool III
- Thread starter pboily
- Start date
beat you yeah but it was clean...no headshot...
thenooblet22
King
I was for any of the Canadian teams. They deserve the Stanley any time bout now.
Naval Power
Sailing the Seven Seas
If they can't win it, the certainly don't deserve it.
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
While I believe that the most deserving team won this year, there is something off with that logic:
I'd be hard pressed to say that the Armenians who didn't survive genocide at the hands of the Turks didn't deserve to live...
I'd be hard pressed to say that the Armenians who didn't survive genocide at the hands of the Turks didn't deserve to live...
Naval Power
Sailing the Seven Seas
Totally unrelated, sports and genocides. But if I wasn't a compassionate human being I'd just pull the natural selection card on that one.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I agree; nothing off with the logic. Armenians have a right to life. No one has a right to win an athletic competition . . .
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
Kids, when we say there is something wrong with the logic, we mean that there is something wrong with the logical construction of the argument: the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis.
While we can agree that there is a correlation between winning a contest and deserving to win a contest, we may not deduce that one implies the other: [wiki]cum hoc ergo propter hoc[/wiki]
The conclusion in this particular case (Canadian teams did not deserve to win the Stanley Cup) is valid, but not as a consequence of the hypothesis (their failing to win the Stanley Cup). As such, the logic is off.
Rather, you could have said that the Canadian teams didn't deserve to win the cup because (a) the Senators did not play well in the final, (b) the Flames and Canucks lost in the earlier rounds (c) the other three teams didn't make the playoffs. All of these are correlated with not Winning the cup, but they are not an implication of them not winning the cup because the Senators could have played badly in the final and still manage to win the Cup. (I'm sure you have seen games in which the Penguins or the Red Wings didn't play well and still won).
==============
Another way in which the argument's logic is off is through [wiki]Fallacy of the single cause[/wiki].
I offered a first example. Your senses revolted at there being but one cause of genocide: them deserving it. There must have been some other reason for the genocide, or, if we are particularly callous, there must have been some other reason on top of them deserving it.
Here is a copy of the same "argument":
"If you cannot get the best grade in a calculus exam, you don't deserve to get the best grade in a calculus exam."
Here, you may think of any number of reasons why you would fail to get the best grade in a calculus exam that have nothing to do with your not being the best student in the class, or your not writing the best exam (a competitor may have cheated, or the professor may have made a mistake marking the exam, or you may be suffering from tuberculosis in which case the exam result is the last of your worries...)
===============
In conclusion, the logic is off.
While we can agree that there is a correlation between winning a contest and deserving to win a contest, we may not deduce that one implies the other: [wiki]cum hoc ergo propter hoc[/wiki]
The conclusion in this particular case (Canadian teams did not deserve to win the Stanley Cup) is valid, but not as a consequence of the hypothesis (their failing to win the Stanley Cup). As such, the logic is off.
Rather, you could have said that the Canadian teams didn't deserve to win the cup because (a) the Senators did not play well in the final, (b) the Flames and Canucks lost in the earlier rounds (c) the other three teams didn't make the playoffs. All of these are correlated with not Winning the cup, but they are not an implication of them not winning the cup because the Senators could have played badly in the final and still manage to win the Cup. (I'm sure you have seen games in which the Penguins or the Red Wings didn't play well and still won).
==============
Another way in which the argument's logic is off is through [wiki]Fallacy of the single cause[/wiki].
I offered a first example. Your senses revolted at there being but one cause of genocide: them deserving it. There must have been some other reason for the genocide, or, if we are particularly callous, there must have been some other reason on top of them deserving it.
Here is a copy of the same "argument":
"If you cannot get the best grade in a calculus exam, you don't deserve to get the best grade in a calculus exam."
Here, you may think of any number of reasons why you would fail to get the best grade in a calculus exam that have nothing to do with your not being the best student in the class, or your not writing the best exam (a competitor may have cheated, or the professor may have made a mistake marking the exam, or you may be suffering from tuberculosis in which case the exam result is the last of your worries...)
===============
In conclusion, the logic is off.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
thenooblet22
King
I never said they deserved to win, I just wanted a Canadian team to win about now (though I will always root for my Stars first). Anything wrong with that?
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment. It would be nice to see a Canadian team pull it off. Particularly one like Ottawa that hasn't won before . . .
thenooblet22
King
Bah, you know what I meant. They don't deserve it, but they it's their turn bout now, don't ya think?
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment. It would be nice to see a Canadian team pull it off. Particularly one like Ottawa that hasn't won before . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Similar threads
