Boxers are scared!!

[ICEibuPROfen]

Exactly, so what's your point? You are just going in circles.

That boxing is light years away from fighting.

Your logic and reasons shift to suit your point. Highly dubious.

Wrong. They have stayed consistent.

How many titles did Conor win with BJJ. Or fights? How many mma titles does mia, jacare, or the MJ of BJJ Travis Leutter have? I wonder how many top contenders do you favor Conor winning with bjj.

Translation: Conor's training in wrestling, kicking, and BJJ mean nothing. Tell me more.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Whenever you quote me I try guess if it'l be the checkers or the boxing is light years away QUOTE.

I respect you for staying after the boxing match, a lot of Conor fans ran after which is just unloyal.

Fixed.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

Show me a fighter that is not made of that. It's been proven many times that carbon is the single most essential element in fighting. Prove me wrong.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

That boxing is light years away from fighting.

Wrong. They have stayed consistent.

Translation: Conor's training in wrestling, kicking, and BJJ mean nothing. Tell me more.

and mma is light years behind boxing.

Consistently inconsistent.

Your reasoning and logic lead you to that conclusion. You are blinded by your own anger. Conor failures are not your own. You will live through this, not through him. You will be alright. You are a special.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Show me a fighter that is not made of that. It's been proven many times that carbon is the single most essential element in fighting. Prove me wrong.

Hence the grossness of your conflation.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

and mma is light years behind boxing.

Consistently inconsistent.

Your reasoning and logic lead you to that conclusion. You are blinded by your own anger. Conor failures are not your own. You will live through this, not through him. You will be alright. You are a special.

You've grossly conflated contention with unarmed combat. By your logic, carbon atoms are the greatest of fighters.

Now you've added in a taste of ad hominem (an attack upon my character) in the hopes of bettering your flawed argument.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

Hence the grossness of your conflation.

Neither of which are wrong. neither of which you've disproved. Light year and fighting.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

Now you've added in a taste of ad hominem (an attack upon my character) in the hopes of bettering your flawed argument.

Now you've added in a taste of ad hominem (an attack upon my character) in the hopes of bettering your flawed argument.

You asked me to tell you more which I did. Much like your argument, just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean they reflect on you or your character. Besides, when you go around telling people they are triggered is that because of insecurities in your argument?

 

[Shinobi]

If you are truly interested in understanding, simply research and educate yourself regarding prescriptive language versus descriptive language.

By your logic, the word "f a g g o t" can only refer to a bundle of sticks. But, of course, in this day and age it often means something completely different. There are reasons why something such as "Urban Dictionary" was created. Language changes over time. And, therefore, this exact discussion that we are having is already deconstructing the long-held delusion that boxing equals fighting. We are reforming the connection between the signifier and the signified.

It is simply a matter of logic and reason. Perhaps these are not your strengths? We cannot all be talented in every field.

It's amazing how fucking dumb you are, and you can't even notice that. By my logic? No, that's not my logic at all, and you certainly don't understand logic.

First off all, the world F has several meanings you can find in the dictionary, one of those is:

noun

1. 1.
   NORTH AMERICANinformaloffensive
   a male homosexual.
2. 2.
   a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel.

So no, it's not just a bundle of sticks. The thing is, no dictionary has YOUR definition of fighting in it, so when you say people are wrong for calling boxing fighting, you're doing it based on your own wishful thinking, and nothing more than that.

Second: Even if YOUR definition was in the dictionary, that wouldnt make other definitions become automatically false.

See, you're not just trying to force YOUR definition down other people's throats, you're saying the one they use is wrong, which is pathetic. It's like me saying that you're wrong for calling a dog a dog, that a dog should be called something completely different that i just invented in my head.

If you want to call out people on what they say, then do it presenting indisputable evidence. Don't just believe that your vision has to be accepted as the right one just because it's your vision. That makes you sound retarded. Am i wrong for calling boxing fighting? Am i misusing the word fighting? Ok, prove it, otherwise stop wasting my time.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

It's amazing how fucking dumb you are, and you can't even notice that. By my logic? No, that's not my logic at all, and you certainly don't understand logic.

First off all, the world F has several meanings you can find in the dictionary, one of those is:

noun

1. 1.
   NORTH AMERICANinformaloffensive
   a male homosexual.
2. 2.
   a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel.

So no, it's not just a bundle of sticks. The thing is, no dictionary has YOUR definition of fighting in it, so when you say people are wrong for calling boxing fighting, you're doing it based on your own wishful thinking, and nothing more than that.

You missed the point entirely about description versus prescription. "F A G G O T" originally meant a bundle of sticks. But, through a change in usage, it gained a novel meaning. How did this occur? Because people began to use the word in a different way. You won't find the definitions for certain types of words in the OED, but you will find them in Urban Dictionary. OED is not evidence enough concerning to which meaning is being alluded.

The point was that words and their meanings (signifier and signified) change over time because people choose to use them differently. In time, what was once considered normal usage will be considered archaic--oftentimes so archaic that the OED will not even contain it within an entry. Rather, you would have to venture into the field of etymology to "re-discover" some usage. Again, dictionaries are merely descriptive accounts of the language--not the utmost authority of the language.

Second: Even if YOUR definition was in the dictionary, that wouldnt make other definitions become automatically false.

See, you're not just trying to force YOUR definition down other people's throats, you're saying the one they use is wrong, which is pathetic. It's like me saying that you're wrong for calling a dog a dog, that a dog should be called something completely different that i just invented in my head.

If you want to call out people on what they say, then do it presenting indisputable evidence. Don't just believe that your vision has to be accepted as the right one just because it's your vision. That makes you sound retarded. Am i wrong for calling boxing fighting? Am i misusing the word fighting? Ok, prove it, otherwise stop wasting my time.

By your logic, arm wrestling is equivalent to boxing in terms of fighting because it fits the definition of "1A violent confrontation or struggle."

The problem is that you are confusing the signifier with the signified; more than likely due to the signifier being the same word that may signify "contention" or "unarmed combat." From there, it appears that your argument is then grossly conflating the two significations in order to assert the long-held delusion that boxing equals fighting.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

You asked me to tell you more which I did. Much like your argument, just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean they reflect on you or your character. Besides, when you go around telling people they are triggered is that because of insecurities in your argument?

The classic double quote of he who is triggered.

There are obvious lacunae in your responses.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Neither of which are wrong. neither of which you've disproved. Light year and fighting.

Incorrect. I've addressed and overcome all of your points. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I can only show you the paths, it is your responsibility to follow them, if able. "Ignorance is bliss."

 

[Okajima]

I remember a thousand threads claiming how Conor was going to destroy Floyd with a style Floyd had never seen, and Conor was about to take over boxing.

Some of those fucking idiots who made retarded threads like that are actually still here.

Their claims have changed drastically however. Now “boxing sucks” or, “its not real fighting, Conor would kill him in a real fight”. This thread is another example.

Just accept that he fucking lost, and move on. Shitting on the sport of boxing because your hero failed is pathetic.

 

[Shinobi]

You missed the point entirely about description versus prescription. "F A G G O T" originally meant a bundle of sticks. But, through a change in usage, it gained a novel meaning. How did this occur? Because people began to use the word in a different way. You won't find the definitions for certain types of words in the OED, but you will find them in Urban Dictionary. OED is not evidence enough concerning to which meaning is being alluded.

No, i didn't miss any point, because yo don't really have one. You're trying to justify your stance with examples that don't quite reflect this same situation.

1- A word gaining new usages doesn't automatically invalidate previous usages. You don't have the authority to decide what's right or wrong. If the word is in the dic, it's right to use it that way. You don't get to change that. How many times do i have to repeat this?

2- Your example doesn't apply to this case. Yes, words gain new meanings, and more often than not those new meanings get featured in the dictionary too, when the usage is common enough. But the reality is this: The vast majority of people, and i mean, close to 100% would refer to punching someone in the face as fighting. This is how the word FIGHTING is used by 99.999999% of the population. The usage of the word hasn't changed in any visible and signifcant way that would warrant an official reinterpretation.What you're basically saying is that because this definition bothers you, it's not valid. WRONG. It is valid. Unless you're now the new autority in english language. Are you?

By your logic, arm wrestling is equivalent to boxing in terms of fighting because it fits the definition of "1A violent confrontation or struggle."

The problem is that you are confusing the signifier with the signified; more than likely due to the signifier being the same word that may signify "contention" or "unarmed combat." From there, it appears that your argument is then grossly conflating the two significations in order to assert the long-held delusion that boxing equals fighting.

I'm not confusing anything. Boxing fits the definition of fighting. In fact, it fits several definitions of fighting. According to the english language boxing is fighting. What else do you want me to say? I'm not gonna change the way i use my word just because some dumbfuck online doesn't like it. You're wrong. I can present you evidence that you're wrong. You can't present me any evidence that i'm using the word incorrectly.

boxing2

[bok-sing]
noun
1.
the act, technique, or profession of fighting with the fists, with orwithout boxing gloves.
Origin
First recorded in 1705-15; box2+ -ing1


Now, you can be stupid and give different meanings to well established words. I have no problem with it. But quite walking around telling people they are wrong, when they obviously aren't.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

The classic double quote of he who is triggered.

There are obvious lacunae in your responses.

Wait did you just ad hominem me in you response to ad hominem?

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

Incorrect. I've addressed and overcome all of your points. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I can only show you the paths, it is your responsibility to follow them, if able. "Ignorance is bliss."

Another ad hominem. I guess your arguments really are that weak. Tell me when you are getting thirsty, and don't be afraid to ask questions. That's why I'm here.

 

[saltyNaCl__salt]

Incorrect. I've addressed and overcome all of your points. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I can only show you the paths, it is your responsibility to follow them, if able. "Ignorance is bliss."

Typical ad hominem reply by someone who hopes to better their weak argument. And a double quote, clearly a sign of being triggered.

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Typical ad hominem reply by someone who hopes to better their weak argument. And a double quote, clearly a sign of being triggered.

wrong

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Another ad hominem. I guess your arguments really are that weak. Tell me when you are getting thirsty, and don't be afraid to ask questions. That's why I'm here.

wrong again

 

[ICEibuPROfen]

Wait did you just ad hominem me in you response to ad hominem?

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.