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

I didn't make any claims to be proven wrong on. Your logical fallacy is, again, burden shifting.

It is you who failed to support his claims with evidence.

Since you need a reminder

hodj_sl said:

I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Click to expand...

I don't know what part of "You do not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it" you aren't getting, but yeah.

The discussion stopped right there.

Its funny that, right now, your entire mistake in this debate, and in the whole Emma case, boils down to the simple fact you cannot tell the difference between a claim being made, and a conclusion being drawn.

And in both instances, the problem is the exact same. You can't understand that someone reaching a conclusion about a claim made based on the lack of evidence presented is not the equivalent in terms of burden of proof, as the person making the initial claim upon which a conclusion is being drawn.

You functionally misunderstand linear, processual thinking, at a basal level. You cannot process A going to B, B going to C, C going to D, etc. in a chain of reason.

You can type nonsense till you are blue in the face, and it won't matter, because the claim you made you have failed utterly to provide any evidence to justify it. I have drawn a conclusion based on that claim. I do not care if you do not like or agree with that conclusion. It is my right to draw the conclusion I will from the evidence I've been presented in regards to your claim, which thus far is jack fucking shit and a side of de nada to boot.

I am the person you are trying to convince. I am the person you made the claim to. I do not accept your attempts to analogize and invent fictional narratives where your claim might be plausible as evidence that your claim is true, because the former cannot be substituted for the latter.

So we are literally stuck right here

hodj_sl said:

I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Click to expand...

And the conversation will not progress further, until you justify that claim with evidence.

I don't care what DickTrickle or Slurm thinks about your claim.

I don't care how many apologetics excuses you can invent for you making it.

You need to either support that claim, or admit you cannot.

Otherwise you have already, four days ago, defaulted on this debate and ceded it.

Period.

You can't salvage that ship. It has sailed, ridden into the iceberg, and sunk. All aboard were lost. No survivors.

And I already had this rebuttal written before whatever it is you just wrote so: didn't read.

Get fucked retard.

And any response by you longer than three sentences, or that does not contain either links to the evidence that these texts were substantially altered to the benefit of Nungesser, or an admission that such evidence does not exist, will not be read.

Didn't read.

Evidence or gtfo.

Uh, no, you can't "address" them.

Because, again, you don't get to re-litigate this issue, semantically parse it, whatever.

Don't care.

Nothing you've said in this thread, or elsewhere, since you made that claim and then began your four day attempts to back slide, replay, and "clarify" your way into salvaging your own ego for making said claim up out of thin air and getting called on it, is relevant or matters to me.

You lost four days ago.

The rest of this has just been me making you waste immense amounts of time for my own amusement.

So again.

Evidence. Or gtfo.

I get that you want to rewrite what you wrote a million times until you find some linguistic trick that allows you to claim you didn't say what you said.

That's called the Tanoomba cycle.

1. Made stupid claim
2. Fail to support it
3. Spend decades trying to rewrite it

What you're failing to get is that game doesn't work with me, or anyone in this community except the credulous (dicktrickle) and the stupid (slurm and yourself).

So, yes, you did make the claim. No amounts of attempting to rehash it are relevant. They have been completely ignored.

Evidence or gtfo.

1. Go live with a black family to get to understand Trayvon's plight better.
2. The Moon Landing didn't happen.
3. Anita wasn't really talking about hitman
4. You can't reach a conclusion on Emma because her behavior is totally consistent with someone who was raped, even though all the evidence contradicts this

and now we have

5. Paul Nungesser's attorneys framed the texts messages so that they were favorable to him over her

I'm sure if I'm missed some, Lithose or someone will be by to add to the list.

This is your record we are operating on here. Your history. No one else's.

The conclusions based on the evidence and the individual making the claim in question are sound.

tl;dr If you are perpetually being "misunderstood" and "misinterpreted" to the point you have to spend over half a week on a regular basis desperately trying to rewrite a stupid statement you made, the problem is not with your audience.

The problem is with you.

But we already knew that.

Sky is blue, grass is green, etc.

At this point, your whole argument basically boils down to "You're refusing to play my game of endlessly re-litigating and constantly re-linking evidence already cited repeatedly earlier, therefore I win a debate I lost four days ago because I say so."

Except not.

Evidence or gtfo.

I don't care what you refuse, and especially since we've already demonstrated you don't even know what a strawman is in the first place, and in fact that your education has failed you in understanding syllogistic reasoning all together, and so therefore, as I said before

hodj_sl said:

So, yes, you did make the claim. No amounts of attempting to rehash it are relevant. They have been completely ignored.

Evidence or gtfo.

Click to expand...

And right now you've got about an hour before I'm headed to Louisville for the afternoon, so you better get on it quick if you plan to stop making a fool of yourself endlessly in this thread (fat chance).

Creationists like Tanoomba attempting to suss out fallacies in arguments they are presented with is always pretty hilarious to watch though, I do admit.

Like this episode of Bible Thumping Wingnut's show where Matt Slick gets his false dichotomy on God and the laws of logic eviscerated and cannot even begin to understand where his flaw is



If only you could be half as successful a bullshitter as Matt Slick, Tanoomba.