ImprobableJoe
New Member
Squawk said:ImprobableJoe said:Hell, I've been 100% successful with picking up women, if you just exclude all the women who said "no"!
I never thought of it like that before. My success rate just improved markedly
Well, to be fair to creationists, you have to dress it up a little bit.
You can eliminate all the women who were already attached, plus lesbians and likely lesbians. Then you redefine "likely lesbian" to mean "women with short hair, relatively tall, not dressed excessively sexy, and really not attracted to me at all." Then try to figure out other things that the women who rejected you had in common. Trying to pick up women in bars or parties where alcohol is served? Clearly they were intoxicated and unable to make a clear-headed judgment of everything you have to offer, so they don't count. Women your friends tried to fix you up with? You know your friends have crappy taste in women, so scratch them as well. The rest of the women who reject you, you can assume they had a bad experience with a guy that looks just like you. Not your fault, doesn't reflect negatively on you at all!
... and this of course is why dotoree wants to use his own special definitions of terms. Once you've defined away all the potential objections to your claims, your claims become obviously and undeniably true by default within the context of those definitions. It is a more clever circular argument than most Christians attempt, and if dotoree weren't dumping so much word salad into every post and just focused on making refining an argument, he might actually get away with it at least in the opening stage of a discussion. The way he pours on the bullshit, it just causes so many red flags that you just know he's trying to pull some sort of dishonesty before you even start getting into the details.