Search results

I never made that claim. Straw man. "We"? Who are you, the fucking Queen? Speak for yourself, nutjob. The default response to somebody making a claim you don't see immediate proof of depends entirely on the context. If your mom tells you someone cursed at her for not reacting to the green...

Literally theexact oppositeof what he is quoting. You can't make this up.

So... "Feels", then? "Feels" is your final answer?

No, not at all. You would just have to prove that she's lying about what happened. It's not an unfeasible thing to ask for proof for. When "Jackie" made up all her shit, there was plenty of HARD EVIDENCE that made it super-obvious she was lying, including plenty of shit that wasn't directly...

Lord, give me strength. You see where it says "on appeal" there? That means he originally was found RESPONSIBLE. You know, like I've previously acknowledged? In the very post you're quoting? And the only reason he won his appeal is because "Josie" was DONE at that point and just abandoned her...

No, because it's entirely feasible that she was raped and wouldn't have any proof of it at the point she initially made the accusation. Remember the "Jackie" case? She lied about being raped. She LIED about BEING RAPED. You see how I can say that confidently? It's because she was a PROVEN...

What is this? What level of the Matrix are we in? What is the possible context in which this makes sense? I'm not demanding absolute evidence of a negative. I'm demanding proof of a positive: The positive claim that Sulkowicz is lying about being raped. There's no short cut, dude. Also, I...

See, shit like this is what shows me you're not even paying attention. I mean, I get it, I'm not worth the effort. That's the rationale, right? You've admitted many times that you can't and won't take me seriously, that you not only don't read my posts but actively announce itevery time. I am...

"Your" "evidence" is not "proof". Her story matches the evidence exactly. There's still no proof she's lying.

Oh, for the layman in an everyday conversation I would absolutely accept the usage of "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably for the most part. Here, though, it is absolutely necessary to make sure everybody's on the same page, ironically in an attempt to prevent exactly the type of slimy...

OK, recap before Jhodi goes derail-crazy: Jhodi has yet to provide a single iota of proof that Sulkowicz was lying about being raped. He continues to be under the mistaken belief that his feels carry more weight than other people's feels, because his feels tell him so. Everyone all caught up?

No, they were both DEFINITELY straw men. If they weren't you could quote me making those statements.

There is at least as much evidence that Sulkowicz is telling the truth as there is that she's lying. The only reason you don't see it that way is (say it with me) FEELS.

Tell you what, sweetums, replace both instances of "non sequitur" in that post with "irrelevant and profoundly stupid straw man". ...Better?

Oh, Jesus Christ, what have I done. Now Jhodi's going to spend the next 5-7 days forcing me to admit something about non sequitur, isn't he? He's going to completely abandon the actual topic at hand in order to focus exclusively on a pointless and non-productive derail, isn't he? Oh, Lord...

Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. You're attempting to connect a straw man about an unrelated topic to this current discussion. There's actually no logical connection at all. Non sequitur.

There's plenty of evidence that Sulkowicz was raped. There's no HARD evidence, there's no CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there's a whole bunch of evidence that suggests she's been telling nothing but the truth about being raped. There's plenty of evidence that Sulkowicz was lying. There's no HARD...

Dude, you can't even spell it.

Jesus Christ, you're psycho.

Non sequitur. "I know you are but what am I?" Never happened. Everything I've said has been syllogistically sound. Bullshit. Every fallacy I've accused you of has been reflected in your very words (not in my re-imagining of your words, which is how you usually try to criticise me). I've ignored...

Asks for evidence. A mountain of it is provided. Rejects it outright. Declares (despite having no authority to do so) what counts as evidence. Tries to backtrack on his claim. Continuously reiterates the fallacy that saying something without proof = lying. Listen, Jhodi, we both know you're...

There is none. Well, there's the accusations from third parties describing events that portray Nungesser as violent and predatory. There's the fact that all the Facebook messages fit perfectly with Sulkowicz's side of the story. There's the fact that there's zero evidence she was trying to...

You know how you can tell when Jhodi has no argument? When he focuses entirely (and I do mean ENTIRELY) on non sequitur, usually involving videos that couldn't have less to do with the topic at hand.

Wow. You went from zero to full retard in just a couple of hours. If you want to tone down the hyperbole and actually discuss this like a human being, you're always welcome. Until then, you can keep entertaining yourself by sticking your fingers in your ears singing "lalalalalalala".

If you had watched the video, you would realize how stupid this sounds. What we see in that video is not a grey area. It's a rape, through and through. It unfolds exactly as Sulkowicz described the incident with Nungesser, and it demonstrates how bruising wouldn't necessarily be an issue. Does...