- 10,170
- 1,439
So you're just ignoring all the reasons why it's perfectly reasonable to believe she might not be lying? How convenient.We don't know if god exists, there is no conclusive proof either way!
So you're just ignoring all the reasons why it's perfectly reasonable to believe she might not be lying? How convenient.We don't know if god exists, there is no conclusive proof either way!
Dude, you've been making big claims about my stance for days. What the fuck do you think my stance is? The closest I can guess is "Emma was raped", which I have proven many times over is not and has never been my stance. Yet, you seem to be under the impression that you are still arguing against my stance. Again, what do you think my stance is?You are now aware you are the only person confused about what has been going on in this thread.
As usual.
Tanoomba;1515957 said:PLEASE LET ME RESTART THE DEBATE BACK TO THREE DAYS AGO SO I DONT HAVE TO ADDRESS THE GLARING AND IRREFUTABLE FOUNDATIONAL FLAW IN MY WORLDVIEW! PLEASE!!!/QUOTE]
Here's what I noticed: Every time, or damn near every time, somebody tries to argue with me about something, they end up arguing against something I've never said. Oh, theybelievethey are addressing my actual stance, to be sure, but confirmation bias and groupthink distort their ability to debate me honestly. How do I know it's dishonest? Because, every time, I patiently and honestly clarify my point, which is usually not what is being argued against.Let me ask you something, Tanoomba.
Is there any controversial position you've taken in your time in this community, where you have not finally just devolved into screaming that you, or the person whom you are defending, has been "misrepresented", yes or no?
Because I think the true answer to that question is very elucidating as to how you perceive yourself in relation to the world aka perpetual victim.
What fallacy did I state? Come on, Jhodi, you made a claim. Back it up. I back up my claims.A better name for the game would be "How many times can we get Tanoomba to restate the same fallacy in different ways" but it doesn't really flow from the tongue like Last Word Contest, I begrudgingly admit.
Sye Ten's argument at the start of the debate also exactly mirrors Tanoomba's argument regarding Emma's rape.
"Why is it reasonable to believe Emma was raped? Because quite simply, it is true she was raped. Premise 1: It is good to believe true things. Premise 2: It is true that Emma was raped. Conclusion: It is good to believe Emma was raped."
Its hilarious how close these arguments are to each other. You can just replace "God" with "Emma" and that says a shit load about the mindset of the "She was raped" crowd.
And the Dillahunty response is pretty much exactly our case here:
1. Ensuring our beliefs are reasonable is the important issue, not that they are 100% perfectly correct all of the time in all cases in all places, since this is not possible anyway. The crux of Tanoomba's argument pits the perfect as the enemy of the good enough
2. It is not reasonable to believe Emma was raped, because no evidence has been presented to justify the claim that she was raped. The claim that she was raped has not been demonstrated to be a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented.
3. Whenever we are presented with a claim, the default is not believing, because otherwise we end up believing all sorts of nonsense like the Moon Landings were faked, and 9-11 was a hoax, and Anita wasn't really talking about Hitman.
ftfyTHIS IS SO UNFAIR WHY WON'T YOU LET ME RESTART THE DEBATE BY DEMANDING YOU RECITE ME EVERYTHING IVE ALREADY BEEN CITED 100 TIMES AND IGNORED ALREADY! THIS IS BULLSHIT! WHAT THE FUCK!!!
We are not going to restart the debate you've already lost when this forum community, about 10 different people, have all explained to you, in detail, why you are retarded on this issue.
If you wish to discuss this further you must either
1. Admit you are wrong because your format is an invalid structure
or
2. Reformulate your argument and try again
That's it. Otherwise, you can just take your happy little dipshit ass back about 15 pages and reread the conversation until you figure it out.
Yeah, still not working, but I appreciate your admission of defeat, however coaxed out of you it had to be, and however you had to couch it to salve that bleeding anus you have right now.Yes, congratulations on your victory against my accurately represented position which I have no cogent rebuttal for, hence why I'm demanding and begging and cajoling and pleading for you to restart a debate I've already lost by demanding evidence already given that I ignored the first 1000 times it was presented!
You are now aware this has never happened.Here's what I noticed: Every time, or damn near every time, somebody tries to argue with me about something, they end up arguing against something I've never said.
No, you fucking retard. 2+2=42+2=5