Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
"The default position is disbelief until the claim is proven"
...Unless the claim is that someone is making false rape accusations. Then it's OK to believe that, even in the absence of proof.
#justjhodithings
The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
...Unless the claim is that someone is making false rape accusations. Then it's OK to believe that, even in the absence of proof.
#justjhodithings
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
It's not a straw man. His conclusion is based on how he believes rape victimsshouldact (along with his misunderstanding of the available information). That, by definition, is feels.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Your logical fallacy is, once again, appeal to perfection.
Your claim there is an absence of proof demonstrates a gross ignorance of what the word proof even means.
You cannot proof human actions. Proofing is done in mathematics, you fucking moron.
The weight of the evidence all lies in one direction. That direction is that she made up the charges.
No evidence points in the direction you are desperately clinging to.
And yes, it is a strawman when you begin a sentence by declaring that someone has "admitted" something they never admitted, especially the retarded nonsense you put in other people's mouths.
Kill yourself, you fucking retard.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Don't even bother responding because I'm not going to read it because I don't care.
Until you can comprehend how basic burden of proof works in every situation, which is that the null hypothesis "The claim is not true" is always the default position, then you are incapable of being reasoned with.
It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You have not reasoned yourself into any position you have ever taken in this community. Every position you have taken you have taken because it allowed you to contrarian shit post about a topic and troll.
You are not even remotely trying, nor are you capable of, practicing good reason. You are a Creatard where the god you worship is your fetishing of women being raped so you can protect them.
That is simply reality.
Until you can comprehend how basic burden of proof works in every situation, which is that the null hypothesis "The claim is not true" is always the default position, then you are incapable of being reasoned with.
It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You have not reasoned yourself into any position you have ever taken in this community. Every position you have taken you have taken because it allowed you to contrarian shit post about a topic and troll.
You are not even remotely trying, nor are you capable of, practicing good reason. You are a Creatard where the god you worship is your fetishing of women being raped so you can protect them.
That is simply reality.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
And your logical fallacy is, once again, appeal to possibility.
The only one here who's shown a consistent misunderstand of the concept of "proof" is YOU. I have proven such, objectively and repeatedly.
Again, this is what you mistakenly consider conclusive "proof":
- Nungesser was found "not responsible" due to lack of evidence (which proves nothing)
- Sulkowicz's behavior after the fact (AKA "feels")
Sorry, Jhodi, no matter how much you've committed yourself to believing otherwise, there is no PROOF Sulkowicz was lying.
This is your subjective and feels-based interpretation. It is worthless.
Actually, "no evidence" points to exactly what I've been saying all along: That we DON'T KNOW what happened.
Did I misunderstand his post? Did I misrepresent his stance? According to his OWN WORDS, he's basing his conclusions on the fact that Sulky's behavior is not how he believes rape victims should act. Again, that is "feels" by definition.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Didn't read.
Until you understand basic burden of proof, you are a waste of time.
If you have a problem with burden of proof, take it up with Aristotle, because absolutely nothing you can say on the matter is relevant. You will not rewrite the laws of logic in an attempt to salvage your pathetic tiny dicked ego because you wish Emma was raped so badly and it didn't happen.
Until you understand basic burden of proof, you are a waste of time.
If you have a problem with burden of proof, take it up with Aristotle, because absolutely nothing you can say on the matter is relevant. You will not rewrite the laws of logic in an attempt to salvage your pathetic tiny dicked ego because you wish Emma was raped so badly and it didn't happen.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I have no problem with burden of proof and I have not re-written the laws of logic.
There is no proof Sulkowicz was raped. We don't know if she was raped.
There is no proof Sulkowicz is lying. We don't know if she's lying.
It really is that simple. You'r the one attempting to re-write the laws of logic by saying that the lack of proof of one possibility is somehow proof of the other possibility. You have yet to back this up in any way. It's literally just a flight of fancy on your part.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I do appreciate, by the way, that you choose to continue to highlight your willful ignorance.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 30,388
- 50,753
No I'm not confused they had evidence admitted in court documents. I based my decision on that, unlike you.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, you are confused. You claimed she asked her rapist to "come fuck her in the ass again". That implies that not only was the anal sex consensual, but that she wanted further sexual contact of that nature and explicitly asked for itafterthe alleged rape. In reality, the comment you are thinking of was made BEFORE the alleged incident. Besides that, it is highly debatable whether that was an actual invitation to anal and not just a joke/expression. Besides THAT, even if itwasan explicit invitation (which is not a given), it would do nothing to prove that what happened after that was consensual.
So yeah, you're very confused.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
It really should say "I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN WAS RAPED SO I CAN BE RIGHT!"
At this point, that's really what is going on here.
Tanoomba would rather Emma be a rape victim, than a liar.
He would rather her have been forcibly fucked in the ass, than have lied about it, simply so he can be right in the face of being so stunningly, astonishingly wrong.
At this point, that's really what is going on here.
Tanoomba would rather Emma be a rape victim, than a liar.
He would rather her have been forcibly fucked in the ass, than have lied about it, simply so he can be right in the face of being so stunningly, astonishingly wrong.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Sulkowicz doesn't need to have been raped for me to be right, since that is not (nor has it ever been) my claim.
My claim is that WE DON'T KNOW what happened, and I'm right about that.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This. And no matter how many butthurt potshots and whining antics you try, nothing is going to stick either, because no one takes you seriously enough for anything you say to matter.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 30,388
- 50,753
I guess all the times she got fucked in the ass confused me. I guess the seven months of text messages begging him for love also confused me or the other random rape allegation but not really allegation during her fucking all of her previous boyfriends friends.
- Status