The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Here's the thing about actual "proof": It is not subject to interpretation. A mistake I've seen made many times over on Rerolled is the assumption that if somethingcould havehappened one way, itmust havehappened that way.
If we look at "Jackie" and her rape accusation, there were many parts of her story that were proven to be wrong. She claimed to have been at a party on a night when no party took place. She claimed to have received messages from someone who it turns out doesn't exist, which was shown through her using a picture of an old high school friend and the fact that the messages came from a phone number generated by a web site that sends messages from fake numbers. There is no reasonable or feasible explanation for the many contradictions between her story and what we know as proven fact. We can safely say she's a proven liar.
If we look at Sulkowicz, none of the facts contradict her story (despite Jhodi's claims). There is nothing that proves she was lying about what happened. Nothing. Many people see the fact that she was in contact with Nungesser after the fact as "proof" she was lying, but this is the exact fallacy I described earlier. Her storyincludesand explains her being in contact with him. The explanation is both reasonable and feasible and requires no greater leap of imagination than assuming someone would attempt to ruin someone's life through false rape accusations because her affections were rebuffed. Now some (like Jhodi) would call this "post-facto revisionism meant to twist the facts to suit her story", but there are two problems with that assumption (and itisan assumption):
1) The only way it wouldn't be post-facto would be if she had been recorded explaining why shewould bein contact with him after the alleged rape but before the Facebook messages. Basically, because she explained herself after the fact (which is, obviously, theonly timeshe could explain herself), she's automatically lying according to Jhodi. This is asinine.
2) There is NOTHING that objectively shows she is lying. No facts that show her claims to be inaccurate. No official records, no evidence of tampering with information, no fake witnesses, nothing. Everything so far that has been presented as "proof" only counts as such due to subjective interpretation, which (again) is not how proof works. If there is an alternative explanation that is reasonable and feasible, then it's not hard evidence.
But somehow, people genuinely seem to believe these two cases fall under the same category. In one case, we know what happened because it has been proven. In the other, we don't know (and, in all likelihood, will never know) because itcan'tbe proven (as is often the case in rape cases). Any reasonable person would have no problem admitting that, but there are certain topics that people here can only discuss in an all-or-nothing, black or white fashion while simply refusing to listen to reason. Context doesn't matter, all that matters is pushing a narrative. It's a shame, really, but it just goes to show how people can be very intelligent about some things and intentionally ignorant about others. I'm sure Jhodi's a smart guy when it comes to dusting mummies or whatever, but he won't even read this post, much less understand it. His bubble is simply too precious (which, incidentally, is something else that has already beenobjectivelyproven).
If we look at "Jackie" and her rape accusation, there were many parts of her story that were proven to be wrong. She claimed to have been at a party on a night when no party took place. She claimed to have received messages from someone who it turns out doesn't exist, which was shown through her using a picture of an old high school friend and the fact that the messages came from a phone number generated by a web site that sends messages from fake numbers. There is no reasonable or feasible explanation for the many contradictions between her story and what we know as proven fact. We can safely say she's a proven liar.
If we look at Sulkowicz, none of the facts contradict her story (despite Jhodi's claims). There is nothing that proves she was lying about what happened. Nothing. Many people see the fact that she was in contact with Nungesser after the fact as "proof" she was lying, but this is the exact fallacy I described earlier. Her storyincludesand explains her being in contact with him. The explanation is both reasonable and feasible and requires no greater leap of imagination than assuming someone would attempt to ruin someone's life through false rape accusations because her affections were rebuffed. Now some (like Jhodi) would call this "post-facto revisionism meant to twist the facts to suit her story", but there are two problems with that assumption (and itisan assumption):
1) The only way it wouldn't be post-facto would be if she had been recorded explaining why shewould bein contact with him after the alleged rape but before the Facebook messages. Basically, because she explained herself after the fact (which is, obviously, theonly timeshe could explain herself), she's automatically lying according to Jhodi. This is asinine.
2) There is NOTHING that objectively shows she is lying. No facts that show her claims to be inaccurate. No official records, no evidence of tampering with information, no fake witnesses, nothing. Everything so far that has been presented as "proof" only counts as such due to subjective interpretation, which (again) is not how proof works. If there is an alternative explanation that is reasonable and feasible, then it's not hard evidence.
But somehow, people genuinely seem to believe these two cases fall under the same category. In one case, we know what happened because it has been proven. In the other, we don't know (and, in all likelihood, will never know) because itcan'tbe proven (as is often the case in rape cases). Any reasonable person would have no problem admitting that, but there are certain topics that people here can only discuss in an all-or-nothing, black or white fashion while simply refusing to listen to reason. Context doesn't matter, all that matters is pushing a narrative. It's a shame, really, but it just goes to show how people can be very intelligent about some things and intentionally ignorant about others. I'm sure Jhodi's a smart guy when it comes to dusting mummies or whatever, but he won't even read this post, much less understand it. His bubble is simply too precious (which, incidentally, is something else that has already beenobjectivelyproven).
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Your attempt to beat your chest does nothing but demonstrate the point already made.
You already ceded the argument when you ran away like a little bitch the other day, then feeling like a loser (because you are) over it, decided to start trying to fight the battle you've already lost hundreds of times again in your little peanut box.
Enjoy the peanuts, retard, because that's all you're getting.
You already ceded the argument when you ran away like a little bitch the other day, then feeling like a loser (because you are) over it, decided to start trying to fight the battle you've already lost hundreds of times again in your little peanut box.
Enjoy the peanuts, retard, because that's all you're getting.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Projection isn't an argument or a rebuttal.
As I said, it is a tale told by an idiot.
Full of sound and fury.
Signifying nothing.
You might need to pull out your dictionary and verify the definitions of the final two words so you can grasp the intent of my meaning here. It is very salient.
As I said, it is a tale told by an idiot.
Full of sound and fury.
Signifying nothing.
You might need to pull out your dictionary and verify the definitions of the final two words so you can grasp the intent of my meaning here. It is very salient.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I did my part, Jhodi. I explained why you're wrong, both succinctly and in detail (so there can be no misunderstanding).
Instead of spewing more hot air, why don't you actually try to make a point for once?
Here, let me help you. Here is YOUR CLAIM:
Instead of spewing more hot air, why don't you actually try to make a point for once?
Here, let me help you. Here is YOUR CLAIM:
So, instead of presenting this argument as self-evident, why don't you exercise that mummy-dusting brain of yours and explain what part of Sulkowicz's story is contradicted by "hard evidence"? If there is a "copious amount", as you claim, then this should be easy. If you stand by your claim, there is literally no reason for you not to be able to back it up.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Projection isn't an argument or a rebuttal.
As I said, it is a tale told by an idiot.
Full of sound and fury.
Signifying nothing.
You might need to pull out your dictionary and verify the definitions of the final two words so you can grasp the intent of my meaning here. It is very salient.
As I said, it is a tale told by an idiot.
Full of sound and fury.
Signifying nothing.
You might need to pull out your dictionary and verify the definitions of the final two words so you can grasp the intent of my meaning here. It is very salient.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Tanoomba, are you Dawkin's/Darwin's Deity in the Youtube Great Debate community?
I can't tell the difference between you and this guy. Your argumentation patterns. Your projection. Your complete inability to deal with reality as it actually exists. Your insistence upon the righteousness of your cause in the face of the overwhelming evidence that you are both wrong, and a narcissistic fuckstain of a human being.
I can't tell the difference between you and this guy. Your argumentation patterns. Your projection. Your complete inability to deal with reality as it actually exists. Your insistence upon the righteousness of your cause in the face of the overwhelming evidence that you are both wrong, and a narcissistic fuckstain of a human being.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Nope.
Not working.
In case you've forgotten, the only person who ran from anything was you. Let me refresh your memory
- Status