The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

khalid · Jul 7, 2016

Tanoomba really falls for Appeal to I really wish it was True.

X is something I want to be true,
so therefore X is true.

His belief in Solar Roadways, Mattress girl and the innocence of Trayvon all fall into this.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, I do. HARD evidence and OVERWHELMING evidence are not subject to interpretation.

Narcissism isn't a rebuttal. Evolution is proven without a shadow of a doubt, despite not being 100% proven, and yet plenty of people disagree with that conclusion.

You are not the arbiter of what we find reasonable and conclusive evidence. You are the arbiter for what you find reasonable and conclusive evidence. And just like every Creatard styled thinker on the planet, the only evidence you will accept is evidence that cannot and will not exist, like G-Man demanding evidence that a dog turned into a cat.

I know you love this little masturbatory fantasy of yours, but I am not a "religious thinker" in any way.

Its not a fantasy. Everyone sees it. The only people that can't see it are the people engaged in it. Its a bit like being insane. Insane people don't realize they're crazy, for the most part.

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).

Wrong, and I've already refuted this. Our argument is that the vast majority of the evidence demonstrates she made up the rape charge, which means she is lying about it. That is an argument based on our interpretation of the preponderance of the evidence.

An appeal to probability is "You can't prove my God doesn't exist/You can't prove Emma wasn't raped, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he does/she wasn't and/or therefore no conclusion is rightfully made because its possible that that conclusion is incorrect."

Deal with it.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

khalid_sl said:
Tanoomba really falls for Appeal to I really wish it was True.

X is something I want to be true,
so therefore X is true.

His belief in Solar Roadways, Mattress girl and the innocence of Trayvon all fall into this.

There's a formal name for it I'm struggling to recall it.

Divine Fallacy maybe?

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

khalid_sl said:
Tanoomba really falls for Appeal to I really wish it was True.

X is something I want to be true,
so therefore X is true.

His belief in Solar Roadways, Mattress girl and the innocence of Trayvon all fall into this.

Now that I think about it, if you formulate this the right way, Tanoomba is basically wishing that Emma was raped, just so he could be correct.

Tanoomba · Jul 7, 2016

In the interest of saving time, I will no longer address your pointless personal attacks against me. They add nothing to the discussion, serve only to illustrate your colossal ignorance, and are not worthy of my attention.

hodj_sl said:
Narcissism isn't a rebuttal. Evolution is proven without a shadow of a doubt, despite not being 100% proven, and yet plenty of people disagree with that conclusion.

I repeat, "hard evidence" and "overwhelming evidence" are not subject to interpretation. Neither of these exist in this case,objectively.if people choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution, that's on them. I have not ignored a single shred of evidence in this case. I went out of my way to find every single piece of evidence that people have suggested "proves" Sulkowicz is lying. It is neither "hard" nor "overwhelming", despite your wishful thinking that this were the case.

hodj_sl said:
Wrong, and I've already refuted this. Our argument is that the vast majority of the evidence demonstrates she made up the rape charge, which means she is lying about it. That is an argument based on our interpretation of the preponderance of the evidence.

The vast majority of evidence OBJECTIVELY does not demonstrate that she made up the rape charge. Again, there is not a single shred, not one iota of evidence that even contradicts her story in any way. There is no part of her description of events that is contradicted by hard evidence. You have yet to show otherwise, despite this being one of your many exaggerated claims.

hodj_sl said:
An appeal to probability is "You can't prove my God doesn't exist/You can't prove Emma wasn't raped, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he does/she wasn't and/or therefore no conclusion is rightfully made because its possible that that conclusion is incorrect."

Wrong. An appeal to probability (or possibility) is saying "There's Joe's car parked outside the pharmacy. Therefore, Joe is in the pharmacy." It might seem reasonable, but it ignores other possibilities, such as that Joe might be at the restaurant next to the pharmacy, or that Joe's girlfriend borrowed his car. You are assuming (and you better believe it's an assumption) that because Sulkowicz MIGHT be lying (which I never denied), that she IS lying.

Brikker · Jul 7, 2016

Every time you post in the rickshaw, you should get a negative net.

Tanoomba · Jul 7, 2016

Brikker_sl said:
Every time you post in the rickshaw, you should get a negative net.

Or, you know, you could just not come read posts in the Rickshaw.

DickTrickle · Jul 7, 2016

hodj_sl said:
You know, the kind of evidence Emma failed to provide to justify her claims, ergo the reason why she's a liar.

I really don't see why failing to prove something in some type of judicial proceeding is proof of her being a liar. You don't think everyone who's claimed rape (or some other crime) and been unable to have their alleged assailant convicted is a liar, right?

I can see why her behavior after may lead you to believe she's a liar, but that's not what your ergo is referencing.

Tanoomba · Jul 7, 2016

DickTrickle_sl said:
I really don't see why failing to prove something in some type of judicial proceeding is proof of her being a liar. You don't think everyone who's claimed rape (or some other crime) and been unable to have their alleged assailant convicted is a liar, right?

I can see why her behavior after may lead you to believe she's a liar, but that's not what your ergo is referencing.

THANK YOU. He's been repeating that flawed logic for ages, I was sincerely wondering why everyone was letting him get away with it.

+1 to you.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

I didnt read any of the abive because thats way too much blather to bother.

Did Tanoomba apologize for wishing Emma was raped so he could be right when he is so obviously wrong yet?

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

DickTrickle_sl said:
I really don't see why failing to prove something in some type of judicial proceeding is proof of her being a liar. You don't think everyone who's claimed rape (or some other crime) and been unable to have their alleged assailant convicted is a liar, right?

I can see why her behavior after may lead you to believe she's a liar, but that's not what your ergo is referencing.

Uh huh.

Heres where youre fucking up: her failure to prove her case isnt the only evidence being used to reach our conclusion.

Try not cherry picking one short handed ststement and ignoring thirty other pists repeatedly making this point and then rebutting a strawman based on that cherry pick.

That way you dont end up looking as stupid as tanoomba next time

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Typing on my cell phone so plenty of uncorrected typos there. Deal with it.

Tanoomba · Jul 7, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Uh huh.

Heres where youre fucking up: her failure to prove her case isnt the only evidence being used to reach our conclusion.

Try not cherry pickingone short handed ststementand ignoring thirty other pists repeatedly making this point and then rebutting a strawman based on that cherry pick.

That way you dont end up looking as stupid as tanoomba next time

Cherry picking?

hodj_sl said:
Columbia University outright stated that her initial story was proven to be false.

hodj_sl said:
Claiming an event happened for which there is no evidence, and for which no investigatory body was able to corroborate, is lying.

hodj_sl said:
Her failure to demonstrate the validity of her claim is the basis for the claim she was lying..

hodj_sl said:
You know, the kind of evidence Emma failed to provide to justify her claims, ergo the reason why she's a liar.

You've been repeating this shit since early May, asshole. You were called on it. Deal with it.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Constructing strawmen from even more cherry picking while ignoring the plethora of times her behavior, the facebook posts, her failure to report and pursue the case legally, AS WELL AS HER FAILURE TO PROVE HER CASE IN THE MOST FORGIVING ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE, THE UNIVERSITY RAPE COURT SYSTEM, is what leads to a reasonable conclusion she is a liar.

Dumb.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

And just because DickTrickle is too fucking dense to grasp that, doesn't mean you are.

And you know it too. The issue has always been the weight of the total case against her. Not any particular individual piece of that puzzle.

So you can stop riding down retard highway on that false assertion based in your imagination as well.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Right from the first post I made about this in this exchange, which began when you ran like a bitch from the Butthurt white guys thread

hodj_sl said:
All the hard evidence contradicts Sulkowicz's version of events you mouth breathing retard.

Every single bit of it.

That's why she lost in the University trial and refused to proceed with legal routes.

I have cited the full weight of the evidence, her facebook posts, her behavior with the mattress, the rape re-enactment video, all of it, as the evidence for the claim she is lying.

So suck on it.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Some more

hodj_sl said:
We aren't going over this again because you're fucking wrong and know it and know that every time we go into this you come out looking like a fucking moron because you have to ignore and interpret every single piece of evidence as favorably as possible for Sulkowicz, bequething her limitless amounts of gullibility and credulous stupidity, in the face no less of copious amounts of evidence that she is a fucking lying cunt, to defend your hopelessly defenseless case, you moronic piece of horse fucking shit.

in the face no less of copious amounts of evidence that she is a fucking lying cunt

copious amounts

Copious. The full body of the evidence supports this conclusion. No single piece is being used.

Your strawman = fucking retarded and dead.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

Some more for your retarded ass

hodj_sl said:
"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.

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.

Tanoomba · Jul 7, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Constructing strawmen from even more cherry picking while ignoring the plethora of times her behavior, the facebook posts, her failure to report and pursue the case legally, AS WELL AS HER FAILURE TO PROVE HER CASE IN THE MOST FORGIVING ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE, THE UNIVERSITY RAPE COURT SYSTEM, is what leads to a reasonable conclusion she is a liar.

Dumb.

Using your EXACT WORDS that you repeated MANY TIMES making EXPLICIT POINTS is somehow "cherry-picking", in the fantasy land of Jhodiesia.

It's not a straw man if it's your EXACT WORDS, you nitwit.

hodj_sl said:
I have cited the full weight of the evidence, her facebook posts, her behavior with the mattress, the rape re-enactment video, all of it, as the evidence for the claim she is lying.

So, you admit there's no hard evidence at all, that the cumulative circumstantial evidence (which is very subject to interpretation) is what led you to your conclusion.

Good, we're making progress.

hodj · Jul 7, 2016

hodj_sl said:
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!".

And more

evidence...including and up to the regulatory bodies

I have spoken very consistently of this as a combination of all the evidence of the events as they are known to have transpired.

I have consistently spoken of the outcome of the University case as one face on the gem of stupidity that is Emma's claim that she was raped and Tanoomba's endless fascination with trying to defend an impossible to defend hill.

The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi