hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
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
Again, because you apparently have a tremendous amount of difficulty understanding this:
My claim: WE DON'T KNOW what happened. Proof does NOT EXIST that can allow us to conclusively know what happened.
Your claim: Sulkowicz was lying, which has been proven by (copious) hard evidence.
Show me some of this copious hard evidence and I will be proven wrong. In the absence of such proof, my stance wins by default. How are you not understanding this?
My claim: WE DON'T KNOW what happened. Proof does NOT EXIST that can allow us to conclusively know what happened.
Your claim: Sulkowicz was lying, which has been proven by (copious) hard evidence.
Show me some of this copious hard evidence and I will be proven wrong. In the absence of such proof, my stance wins by default. How are you not understanding this?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
See, linear thinking is critical to understanding processes.
Art classes explicitly try to break people out of linear thinking, because not being completely rational is an important part of creating good art.
But not being completely rational is a terrible thing to be when you need to understand how a process proceeds through its various stages.
You want to start at the end, and go last in first out, like we're playing a game of Magic the Gathering here.
"You claim she was a liar, so you have to prove that claim!". What you fail to grasp, continuously, is the claim that she is a liar is based on the combination of her failure to justify her claim that she was raped, combined with her behaviors in private and public as a result of her failure to justify her claim in the most lax and forgiving court room setting possible.
So just like the Creationist who is down here trying to argue that without Jesus we cannot have redemption, we atheists are up here at Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" demanding that the Creatards (you) come back and justify that basal assertion.
Ergo:Your logical fallacy is burden shifting.
The proof she is a liar is in the failure of her to prove her claims combined with her actions in public and private. All of which are well known.
You deny this evidence, despite its overwhelming nature, again like the Creatard jacking off to Ken Ham's abomination, while ignoring the literal mountains of evidence contradicting his position.
You are, literally, this stupid bitch
Art classes explicitly try to break people out of linear thinking, because not being completely rational is an important part of creating good art.
But not being completely rational is a terrible thing to be when you need to understand how a process proceeds through its various stages.
You want to start at the end, and go last in first out, like we're playing a game of Magic the Gathering here.
"You claim she was a liar, so you have to prove that claim!". What you fail to grasp, continuously, is the claim that she is a liar is based on the combination of her failure to justify her claim that she was raped, combined with her behaviors in private and public as a result of her failure to justify her claim in the most lax and forgiving court room setting possible.
So just like the Creationist who is down here trying to argue that without Jesus we cannot have redemption, we atheists are up here at Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" demanding that the Creatards (you) come back and justify that basal assertion.
Ergo:Your logical fallacy is burden shifting.
The proof she is a liar is in the failure of her to prove her claims combined with her actions in public and private. All of which are well known.
You deny this evidence, despite its overwhelming nature, again like the Creatard jacking off to Ken Ham's abomination, while ignoring the literal mountains of evidence contradicting his position.
You are, literally, this stupid bitch
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
And again, just like the Creationists, you appeal to the absolute, when all that is necessary is the extremely likely.
Your logical fallacy is appeal to perfection in this case.
Get fucked, you illogical, rabid dipshit.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
And here you sound like G-Man on Drunken Peasants arguing with Dusty, screaming "Show me some empirical evidence there are starving Christian children in the world!"
The functional analogs between you and the theist community on Youtube are just stunning, really.
The reality is that you've been shown evidence sufficient to convince any reasonable person, including and up to the regulatory bodies at the university levels who saw this evidence and exonerated the accused in this case, and you stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes and scream "Show me the starving children!".
You're a idiot. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing but your own ignorance.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
That's not "hard evidence", youcolossal retard. That is, literally and explicitly,FEELS. FEELS which are influenced by personal world views, by personal bias, by personal ideology, and by personal need to push specific narratives. Actual "hard evidence" requires no personal interpretation, as I have pointed out several times now.
You're framing your personal opinion as proven fact, which is so incredibly hypocritical of you it boggles my mind. If you honestly can't see the difference between ACTUAL hard evidence, AKA proof, as seen in the "Jackie" case, and personal interpretation of available information in the Sulkowicz case, then you are far, far stupider than even my sarcastic quips have implied.
Unbe-fucking-lievable.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
"Extremely likely" according to WHO? YOU don't get to make that call, idiot. "Hard evidence" negates the need for measuring likeliness, because conclusions can be drawn from the proof alone. That is not the case here, which (again) any reasonable person would be able to admit.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Everything you just said I just rebutted in those three posts before you said it.
Its just Creatard nonsense from you. You are G-man, Rocket Ronnie, the dumb bitch from the Field Museum, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Dawkin's Deity; the lot of them.
All their logical fallacies and willful ignorance rolled into one atrocity of a human being.
Its just Creatard nonsense from you. You are G-man, Rocket Ronnie, the dumb bitch from the Field Museum, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Dawkin's Deity; the lot of them.
All their logical fallacies and willful ignorance rolled into one atrocity of a human being.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I didn't make that call you fucking retard, the University who rejected her claim despite being the most forgiving setting for punishing people falsely accused of rape in the nation did.
You are so fucking stupid.
Suicide. Please. For everyone. Do not breed.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
All of this is wrong. Funny how you shifted from "hard evidence" that is "copious" to just "sufficient evidence", though. That's called goalpost shifting, and it's stupid to resort to in this case because you're STILL WRONG. There is not sufficient evidence to show she was lying. There also wasn't sufficient evidence to show she was telling the truth. THAT'S why the university found Nungesser "not responsible", NOT because they found her to be lying. It blows my mind that you can't understand this.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Your logical fallacy is assertion.
No one has shifted anything. You are the only person here who demands 100% rock solid proof in the form of catching them in the act and her begging for him to fuck her in the ass, and even then you'd find some way to claim it was rape. The only one. No one else has demanded it.
Your unreasonableness is not an argument or a rebuttal.
We are framing the results of the University trial and the fact that this woman refused to pursue this matter through the legitimate legal system as fact.
Because they are. Fact: She failed to justify her claim of rape. She went on national television saying she was raped. She wrote repeated article claiming she was raped. She made movies claiming she was re-enacting her rape. She carried a mattress around that she claimed she was raped on. She carried that mattress to her graduation and is still making videos and blog posts about the traumatization she received in a rape that never happened.
These are the hard facts. Deal with it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Its literally just you doing G-Man's routine worse than he does.
At least he's funny when he does it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I'm bored as shit.I just totally scrolled past the last 3 pages. What the fuck is wrong with you guys.
- 19,525
- 72,216
I don't know why I even click on this thread when I know I'm just going to scroll past the whole thing.I just totally scrolled past the last 3 pages. What the fuck is wrong with you guys.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I've never demanded any of that. Again, my claim is that WE DON'T KNOW what happened. Proof does NOT EXIST that will show her story to be true or a fabrication. Why does this bother you so much? Why are you incapable of accepting that we don't know and will likely never know what happened? Why do you equate that with defending Sulkowicz? Why are you obsessed with believing she is a proven liar, even when no such proof exists? Holy shit, you're batshit crazy about this.
Nope. You were almost factually correct until your last three words, when you again demonstrated that you don't understand what facts are.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Without even reading it, I bet he denies any culpability, demands perfect information before we're allowed to reach a conclusion, then demands we prove a negative in the form of demonstrating she wasn't raped in order to prove she's a liar.
How close did I get guys?
How close did I get guys?
- Status