hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Yes. That's the dictionary definition of cherry picking.
Get fucked retard.
Another strawman. Cumulative evidence is hard evidence.
Kill yourself.
The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Get fucked retard.
Kill yourself.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This is me just going post by post from the start and showing you how retarded you are.
You don't get to argue with StrawHodj, retard.
My case is clear, your attempt to pretend I'm only talking about one piece of the evidence is demonstrably fucking false.
Now you can either deal with my case as I'm making it, or you can keep trying to pretend I said something I did not by excluding the statements I've made which contradict your insipid stupidity.
Which is it going to be, retard.
You don't get to argue with StrawHodj, retard.
My case is clear, your attempt to pretend I'm only talking about one piece of the evidence is demonstrably fucking false.
Now you can either deal with my case as I'm making it, or you can keep trying to pretend I said something I did not by excluding the statements I've made which contradict your insipid stupidity.
Which is it going to be, retard.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
The fact that Jhodi's hubris is the contributing factor to his own spectacular humiliation is really what makes this so delicious.
A more reasonable person would have given up after the third or fourth time his statements were proven wrong. But not our Jhodi! He'll keep digging his grave deeper and deeper. Thank Christ Rickshaw posts can't be edited, his posts these last couple of days will serve as a testament to his ignorance.
I fucking love Rerolled.
A more reasonable person would have given up after the third or fourth time his statements were proven wrong. But not our Jhodi! He'll keep digging his grave deeper and deeper. Thank Christ Rickshaw posts can't be edited, his posts these last couple of days will serve as a testament to his ignorance.
I fucking love Rerolled.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I cite every murder conviction that has ever occurred without a body or a murder weapon or a motive being ascertained.
Retard.
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
We're not talking about personal beliefs here, moron. I've stated MANY TIMES that what we personally believe means NOTHING, that all that matters is what can be PROVEN. Try to keep up before making ignorant comments, thanks.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
None of my trolls about the Ark Park on the various local websites have returned the gold I was hoping for from the local yokels, so I'm using Tanoomba as my backup trolling plan.
He's always good for it. That's the one thing we can count on him for unrelentingly.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No matter how many times you beat your chest and try to declare victory so you can run away, the end result remains:
Your logical fallacy is appeal to possibility. You're wrong about any hard evidence existing, and you're wrong about copious evidence existing. All your claims against me are pure projection.
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,760
- 16,122
Not reading all that. You could have phrased it other ways but chose not to ("She has shown herself to be a liar, which is the big reason why she couldn't prove anything") instead of she didn't prove her claim in court, ergo she's a liar.
The point was you made a sloppy statement that implied a ridiculous conclusion and I pointed it out. As some of the other quotes provided show ("Claiming an event happened for which there is no evidence, and for which no investigatory body was able to corroborate, is lying."), you don't mind this sloppiness even though it's not necessary. Of course, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there that you're just being sloppy in the condensing of your argument.
The point was you made a sloppy statement that implied a ridiculous conclusion and I pointed it out. As some of the other quotes provided show ("Claiming an event happened for which there is no evidence, and for which no investigatory body was able to corroborate, is lying."), you don't mind this sloppiness even though it's not necessary. Of course, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there that you're just being sloppy in the condensing of your argument.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This is all bitching because you cherry picked one short hand. I do not have to spell out, in detail, every single time the claim is made, the full litany of evidence.
If you're too lazy to read it, that's not my responsibility either.
Your strawman was refuted. Whether you think it was sloppy of me to one time, or ten times, out of fifty, to short hand the point I was making, then too fucking bad.
Suck my cock, basically.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You can always tell when Tanoomba has lost because he just runs to "I'm rubber you're glue!" arguments.
Because he's an unoriginal and desperate faggot.
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,760
- 16,122
P implies Q, Q does not necessarily imply P. If you're going to shorthand it, you could easily do it the right way instead of the wrong way, in just as many words. It's not about reposting all the evidence. As an avowed lover of logic, you shouldn't be so sloppy in messing up the basics.
But yes, even though I actually do think Nungesser was the wronged party, because I challenge something I am a villain that must be vanquished.
But yes, even though I actually do think Nungesser was the wronged party, because I challenge something I am a villain that must be vanquished.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You constructed a strawman and I hit back for it. This is an ongoing conversation that is on day 2 or 3 now, with many posts being made back and forth over the course of it.
Expecting perfection in every post, and then calling out one where it didn't happen while ignoring the full body of the argument being made, is simply disingenuous.
I would have assumed accident before malice, except that the case of cherry picking is so egregious in the face of the past 10 pages where I've stated repeatedly that the full body of the evidence justifies the conclusion, not just any one aspect.
The focus on the failure to make her case in the University trial is because that trial is always entirely rigged in favor of the accusers, by definition. If you cannot win in that environment, you cannot win anywhere. Period. That's a significant tally mark in the "She's a liar" category, but not the whole justification for that conclusion.
Expecting perfection in every post, and then calling out one where it didn't happen while ignoring the full body of the argument being made, is simply disingenuous.
I would have assumed accident before malice, except that the case of cherry picking is so egregious in the face of the past 10 pages where I've stated repeatedly that the full body of the evidence justifies the conclusion, not just any one aspect.
The focus on the failure to make her case in the University trial is because that trial is always entirely rigged in favor of the accusers, by definition. If you cannot win in that environment, you cannot win anywhere. Period. That's a significant tally mark in the "She's a liar" category, but not the whole justification for that conclusion.
- Status