Search results

Do you realize that's Nungesser's testimony? Even according to his testimony, they had anal sex ONCE (that was the time that she claimed was a rape). How does that translate to "all the times"? Did you even read what you linked? Those messages you quoted aren't "begging for love" by any...

Not butthurt. Not whining. I'm glad you realize all you've got left after failing miserably to support your argument is to try to discredit me personally. "All the times"? What does that even mean? Citation needed on seven months of text messages "begging for love". No idea what "other...

Jhodi's gone full "la la la" mode. This what happens when he realizes he backed a losing horse.

Proof of Jhodi's willful ignorance #1349: The above post.

Sulkowicz doesn't need to have been raped for me to be right, since that is not (nor has it ever been) my claim. My claim is that WE DON'T KNOW what happened, and I'm right about that.

No, you are confused. You claimed she asked her rapist to "come fuck her in the ass again". That implies that not only was the anal sex consensual, but that she wanted further sexual contact of that nature and explicitly asked for itafterthe alleged rape. In reality, the comment you are thinking...

I do appreciate, by the way, that you choose to continue to highlight your willful ignorance.

I have no problem with burden of proof and I have not re-written the laws of logic. There is no proof Sulkowicz was raped. We don't know if she was raped. There is no proof Sulkowicz is lying. We don't know if she's lying. It really is that simple. You'r the one attempting to re-write the...

*You're

And your logical fallacy is, once again, appeal to possibility. The only one here who's shown a consistent misunderstand of the concept of "proof" is YOU. I have proven such, objectively and repeatedly. Again, this is what you mistakenly consider conclusive "proof": - Nungesser was found...

It's not a straw man. His conclusion is based on how he believes rape victimsshouldact (along with his misunderstanding of the available information). That, by definition, is feels.

"The default position is disbelief until the claim is proven" ...Unless the claim is that someone is making false rape accusations. Then it's OK to believe that, even in the absence of proof. #justjhodithings

So you admit your conclusion is based on subjective "feels", then? You're judging someone you don't know for not behaving in a way you approve of? OK, then. Also, the "fuck me in the but" comment wasbeforethe alleged rape, not after. There was no invitation to sex after the fact. You're not...

Why would you believe that if it can't be proven? The only logical conclusion is WE DON'T KNOW what happened. There's nothing wrong with that.

Bonus Content! If you want to make fun of me, feel free to use any of these ridiculous gifs: "Hey Tanoomba! This is you trying to navigate this discussion!" "What's the matter, Tanoomba? Did your logic hit a wall?" "Sure, Tanoomba, just keep producing those new...

??? There isn't even a context in which that post makes sense, Jhodi. You know, you aren't obligated to make a post after every post of mine. There is no shame in bowing out with dignity.

Glad you're enjoying it.

TLDR: I proved you're a "Creatard", by YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

Called it.

Jhodi, have you ever noticed that about 80% of your "debate" strategy revolves around attempting to discredit your opponent through personal attacks and judgment on their character? You would think someone whose self-claim to fame is a firm grasp of logic would understand that's a shitty way to...

... Says the king of self-delusion.

Oh, I already know you'd win the popularity contest, which is inevitably what any poll would end up being.

As has any chance of you salvaging your argument.

I was expecting much worse. She ain't even half bad.

Why? What does the girl with the cute voice look like?

FFS, your first post on that very topic was 22 minutes before this one, making a crack about the reporter. Jesus Christ, get some perspective. And fuck you for using a tragedy as your "parachute plan" for getting out of the plane crash that was your argument. Seriously, fuck you.

I do! I'm on vacation.

Ah yes! The arbitrary restrictions applied to prevent actual discussion and attempt to control the narrative. How could I forget?

Wait, wait... let me call it: "Didn't read"

- Right-click "Advanced Search" (right under the search bar) and select "open link in new tab" (I like to keep a trunk going for convenience's sake while I explore the branches) - Click the "Search single content type" tab - Scroll down, Show results as: "Posts" - Keyword(s): "didn't read"...

Again (again, again, again, again), I have repeatedly shown that you reject information not convenient to your narrative (you made it much easier with your "didn't read" posts, thanks). And you're going to try to tellmethatI'mdenying evidence exists? Fucking LINK IT, then. What do you suggest I...

Fuck, I forgot to add: "We don't know what happened with Emma Sulkowicz. Proof doesn't exist that either confirms or contradicts her story." - Tanoomba (That was my initial claim that has yet to be refuted in any way whatsoever. NOW you're caught up.)

Cry more. I love it.

Recap: "If you say something but don't prove it, you're lying!" - Jhodi "Evidence = hard evidence!" - Jhodi "My subjective interpretation of information = Courtroom decisions!" - Jhodi "I know you are but what am I?" - Jhodi "Using the stupidity of my EXACT WORDS against me...

Holy shit, how do you keep missing the fact that I've objectively provenmany times overthat you intentionally block out information that doesn't suit your narrative... LIKE CREATIONISTS? I've done a far better job proving you're a "creatard" than you have me! The detachment from reality in...

On the other hand, it's a fantastic thing to have on in the background while you do something else.

Last one: It's always easier to quote something that someone else said, than have the courage to say something original. - Virginia Frans