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
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Let me help you:
According to Wikipedia (who correctly equates "hard evidence" with a "smoking gun"): a reference to an object or fact that serves asconclusive evidenceof a crime or similar act
Best answer on Yahoo Answers: Well, it's kind of like something you knowbeyond a shadow of a doubt. Doubt is what can sway a jury. It can also be used to determine evidence. If it isirrefutable, orbeyond doubt, then it is considered "hard evidence".
Are you feeling embarrassed yet? You should be.
According to Wikipedia (who correctly equates "hard evidence" with a "smoking gun"): a reference to an object or fact that serves asconclusive evidenceof a crime or similar act
Best answer on Yahoo Answers: Well, it's kind of like something you knowbeyond a shadow of a doubt. Doubt is what can sway a jury. It can also be used to determine evidence. If it isirrefutable, orbeyond doubt, then it is considered "hard evidence".
Are you feeling embarrassed yet? You should be.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
So, for the record, Jhodi is officially saying that "evidence" and "hard evidence" are the same thing. I'm not making this up. His rationale? "I put 'hard evidence' into Google and it gave me the definition of 'evidence', so they're the same!"
Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he finds a way! Incredible.
Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he finds a way! Incredible.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Now, Tanoomba, here's the critical question:
Where's the hard evidence she was raped?
It doesn't exist.
And that's why we can justifiably conclude she is a liar, in conjunction with her actions both during in text messages, and after the fact, in being an attention whore drama queen.
Because the default position in the face of her positive claim is disbelief.
Where's the hard evidence she was raped?
It doesn't exist.
And that's why we can justifiably conclude she is a liar, in conjunction with her actions both during in text messages, and after the fact, in being an attention whore drama queen.
Because the default position in the face of her positive claim is disbelief.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
As I said approximately one million times: There is none.
Wrong. You can NOT justifiably conclude that. In fact, you can not justifiably conclude ANYTHING. You can guess. You can assume. You can believe. But you absolutely can NOT conclude.
Your fallacy is appeal to possibility.
Wrong again.
The default position is doubt, or skepticism, or simply saying "we don't know". Since there is no proof she was lying, it would be foolish to assume that is the case. But then, you are quite the fool.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
And there's the Creatard logic in perfect display.
Gotcha again faggot.
Let me know when you plan to visit the Ark park so I can be there to mock and ridicule you when you arrive to meet your people.
Intrinsic
Person of Whiteness
- 15,744
- 14,494
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Spoken like the typical deistic theist retard "We can't know for 100% certainty, therefore no reasonable conclusions can be reached."
Incorrect. I cannot know for 100% certainty that God does not exist in the same way I cannot know for 100% certainty Emma was not raped. But I can look at the weight of the evidence for both, which is overwhelming, and reach a justifiably conclusion regardless.
And we have. And nothing you can say or do without demonstrating that her claim was valid, can change that. Because that is how proper rational skepticism is applied. Not this looney toons mind so open your brain falls out vacillating cowardly fence post riding chucklefuck retard argument you've peddled in this community for going on four years now.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
The problem is the evidence is nowhere near "overwhelming". That's a fact. You don't understand this, and apparently you will never understand this, but that's your main problem. You don't understand what "hard evidence" is, and you don't understand what "overwhelming evidence" is. You're festering in your own ignorance, which is literally the only way you can keep your weak, weak argument going.
Again, your fallacy is appeal to possibility.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You don't get to determine what other people find as overwhelming evidence.
This goes, again, to the base narcissism of yours, and all theistic styled thinkers, positions inherent.
To the religious minded, no amount of evidence can ever be sufficient. This is because they are the unreasonable ones.
Just like the way Ken Ham is sitting in a giant concrete boat filled with dinosaur puppets, declaring all the evidence to be on his side and none of the evidence to support his opposition in his religion induced myopia, you sit here in this monkeybox, filled with your failures to justify your claims, declaring all the evidence to be on your side and none of the evidence sufficient to support ours.
Its silly season shit.
You know it.
We know it.
This goes, again, to the base narcissism of yours, and all theistic styled thinkers, positions inherent.
To the religious minded, no amount of evidence can ever be sufficient. This is because they are the unreasonable ones.
Just like the way Ken Ham is sitting in a giant concrete boat filled with dinosaur puppets, declaring all the evidence to be on his side and none of the evidence to support his opposition in his religion induced myopia, you sit here in this monkeybox, filled with your failures to justify your claims, declaring all the evidence to be on your side and none of the evidence sufficient to support ours.
Its silly season shit.
You know it.
We know it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Incorrect. That is another of your fallacies, actually.
Let me demonstrate
Appeal to Possibility
Yours is the argument that relies on possibility, not probability.
Our argument is entirely based on probability.
You fundamentally misunderstood what this fallacy is related to.
Because you suck at logic. Badly.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Really, the fact that you are so myopic and incapable of self reflection that you can't see how literallyevery single chargeyou throw at us is just youprojecting on to us your own internalized insecurities, is just so sad, really.
You're not even really an object of ridicule or scorn at this point, but one of sympathy. You're just so fundamentally incapable of thinking rationally.
You're not even really an object of ridicule or scorn at this point, but one of sympathy. You're just so fundamentally incapable of thinking rationally.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Yes, I do. HARD evidence and OVERWHELMING evidence are not subject to interpretation.
I know you love this little masturbatory fantasy of yours, but I am not a "religious thinker" in any way. In the case of "Jackie", there was plenty of hard evidence. I would even go as far as calling it "overwhelming". That's nowhere near the case with Sulkowicz. So, again, you're wrong.
No, I chose correctly. Your fallacy is appeal to possibility.
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).
- Status