Talk:Great Beethoven fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Nominating this for bronze. Why? Because I think it's at least somewhat good, so I want you to review it amongst yourselves so I don't come off as overtly arrogant. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was fine before you fucked with it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What's less than copper? Tin? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
How about brass? -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
How about revert? ТyNo 04:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Already on it, keep up now TY--il'Dictator Mikal 04:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ugh...I say revert it back to this revision. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Analogous conversation (which might prove useful):

Person A: Let's go to the nearby store and buy lottery tickets!

Person B: You do realize that you're essentially throwing money away when you buy lottery tickets, right?

Person A: No! My ticket will have the right numbers on it, and I'll win a million dollars! I know it!

Person B: *Calls gambling addiction hotline*

68.96.85.197 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Great?

Beethoven was great, but is this fallacy great? I think we should move this to Beethoven fallacy. SophieWilderModerator 19:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support