The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You expect yourself to be taken seriously as a debater, but you call fallacies you don't even comprehend.
You are a retard and every stupid error you make you wish to just swipe under the rug because you are a self serving horseshit peddler.
Too bad so sad for you, retard.
Demonstrate how my statement, which you claim was a non-sequitur fallacy, fits any formal syllogistic definition of the term.
You can't do it because
1. You don't understand syllogisms in the first place
2. My statement is not a non sequitur you fucking retard.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
There is at least as much evidence that Sulkowicz is telling the truth as there is that she's lying. The only reason you don't see it that way is (say it with me) FEELS.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Its not a strawman either.
Holy fuck you are stupid.
Its not a fallacy at all. At best its just a straight up insult.
Moron.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This is just a base assertion fallacy. There is no evidence Sulkowicz was raped, ergo there is no evidence that she is telling the truth.
You can stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and scream "BIAS!" till you are blue in the face, you are wrong and the police, the university court system, everyone in this community who has looked at the evidence besides yourself, and the rest of reality disagree with you.
Deal with it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
If they were, you could put them into a syllogistic format demonstrating that they are.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
OK, recap before Jhodi goes derail-crazy:
Jhodi has yet to provide a single iota of proof that Sulkowicz was lying about being raped. He continues to be under the mistaken belief that his feels carry more weight than other people's feels, because his feels tell him so.
Everyone all caught up?
Jhodi has yet to provide a single iota of proof that Sulkowicz was lying about being raped. He continues to be under the mistaken belief that his feels carry more weight than other people's feels, because his feels tell him so.
Everyone all caught up?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Here's a fallacy you're engaging in: Equivocation on the definition of evidence.
Technically, anything can be considered evidence, so when you say "There's plenty of evidence Sulkowicz was not raped" you're equivocating because you know that when people say there is no evidence for something, they mean there is no good, sound evidence for a thing.
The fact that the sky is blue and the grass is green could be cited as evidence Sulkowicz was raped, for instance. But that's pretty bad evidence.
So by equivocating on the word evidence and what it implies in any discussion wherein we are discussing a crime committed and the burden of evidence in a court of law, you perpetuate your typical attempts to play loose with language so you can hide behind plausible deniability.
It only works on retards aka yourself and probably Slurm.
There is no good evidence Sulkowicz was raped, and mountains of sound evidence that she's a liar. Including her actions, her failure to report for two years, her reactions after the fact, her texts and emails, her complete lack of evidence she was assaulted, etc. There's plenty of evidence she wasn't raped, if you're willing to accept specious nonsense like "She made a video re-enacting her supposed rape that was very credible and made me believe the rape could have occurred", but rational people are not, because they understand the difference between shit evidence, and sound evidence, and because they aren't dishonest chucklefuck retards like yourself who double and triple and quadruple down on being wrong until you're so bent out of shape you're wishing a woman had been sexually assaulted just so you can be right on the internet.
Deal with it.
Technically, anything can be considered evidence, so when you say "There's plenty of evidence Sulkowicz was not raped" you're equivocating because you know that when people say there is no evidence for something, they mean there is no good, sound evidence for a thing.
The fact that the sky is blue and the grass is green could be cited as evidence Sulkowicz was raped, for instance. But that's pretty bad evidence.
So by equivocating on the word evidence and what it implies in any discussion wherein we are discussing a crime committed and the burden of evidence in a court of law, you perpetuate your typical attempts to play loose with language so you can hide behind plausible deniability.
It only works on retards aka yourself and probably Slurm.
There is no good evidence Sulkowicz was raped, and mountains of sound evidence that she's a liar. Including her actions, her failure to report for two years, her reactions after the fact, her texts and emails, her complete lack of evidence she was assaulted, etc. There's plenty of evidence she wasn't raped, if you're willing to accept specious nonsense like "She made a video re-enacting her supposed rape that was very credible and made me believe the rape could have occurred", but rational people are not, because they understand the difference between shit evidence, and sound evidence, and because they aren't dishonest chucklefuck retards like yourself who double and triple and quadruple down on being wrong until you're so bent out of shape you're wishing a woman had been sexually assaulted just so you can be right on the internet.
Deal with it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
"You can't prove she wasn't raped so nyah nyah nyah!"
Also assertion fallacy, this entire discussion began with me citing, directly, evidence that she was not raped, that her story does not match the evidence, and that is, in fact, evidence she is lying.
Get fucked kid.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence she is lying:
1. She claims she was physically and sexually assaulted. There is no evidence to support this claim
2. The university investigated her claims rigorously, and found Nungesser to be innocent of the charges. Let me re-iterate that, because its from your own link: Nungesser was found to be NOT CULPABLE FOR ANY ATTACKS ON EMMA. Period.
3. The police, when given the case, chose not to pursue it due to lack of evidence as well
4. The text messages which clearly contradict her claims about Nungesser and her relationship
5. The multiple other false charges that were leveled by friends and sympathizers of Emma's all of which failed to meet their burdens as well against Nungesser when those trials occurred
6. Her behavior in regards to the mattress at university and during graduation
7. Her "re-enactment" of her rape, which was so traumatizing she wanted to live through it again for show and entertainment
All evidence she is lying.
You can claim that none of this exists, none of it has been cited, none of it is on the record till you are blue in the face, you are a liar, a fraud, and a complete dishonest piece of shit.
And this is word for word what you're doing, including just asserting the contrary position despite all the evidence contradicting you, and then hoping if you just repeat it enough everyone else will just give up and you will win by default.
Evidence she is lying:
1. She claims she was physically and sexually assaulted. There is no evidence to support this claim
2. The university investigated her claims rigorously, and found Nungesser to be innocent of the charges. Let me re-iterate that, because its from your own link: Nungesser was found to be NOT CULPABLE FOR ANY ATTACKS ON EMMA. Period.
3. The police, when given the case, chose not to pursue it due to lack of evidence as well
4. The text messages which clearly contradict her claims about Nungesser and her relationship
5. The multiple other false charges that were leveled by friends and sympathizers of Emma's all of which failed to meet their burdens as well against Nungesser when those trials occurred
6. Her behavior in regards to the mattress at university and during graduation
7. Her "re-enactment" of her rape, which was so traumatizing she wanted to live through it again for show and entertainment
All evidence she is lying.
You can claim that none of this exists, none of it has been cited, none of it is on the record till you are blue in the face, you are a liar, a fraud, and a complete dishonest piece of shit.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Also, your logical fallacy is equivocation on the word "proof", as well.
You're misusing the term, because you can't "prove" real life events. That is a misapplication of the term proving in the first place. You proof things which are definitionally true.
And your claim is also predicated on a demand for absolute evidence for a negative, so once again, your logical fallacy is burden shifting.
Its not our job to prove she absolutely 100% was not raped, which is impossible to do anyway, in order to be justified in reaching a conclusion a rape did not occur and Emma is a liar.
Deal with it.
You're misusing the term, because you can't "prove" real life events. That is a misapplication of the term proving in the first place. You proof things which are definitionally true.
And your claim is also predicated on a demand for absolute evidence for a negative, so once again, your logical fallacy is burden shifting.
Its not our job to prove she absolutely 100% was not raped, which is impossible to do anyway, in order to be justified in reaching a conclusion a rape did not occur and Emma is a liar.
Deal with it.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Oh, for the layman in an everyday conversation I would absolutely accept the usage of "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably for the most part. Here, though, it is absolutely necessary to make sure everybody's on the same page, ironically in an attempt to prevent exactly the type of slimy irrelevant derailing you absolutely adore indulging in.
I disagree. That could not be cited as evidence.
On the contrary, I am demanding only that this rule be applied equally to all crimes, including the crime of falsely accusing somebody of rape. Before we conclude that somebody is guilty of a serious crime, we should demand to see proof of it. You're attempting to bypass this step because you think you found a "she's the bad guy!" loophole, but that's why you're an idiot.
Says who? The courts? No. No court ever concluded she was lying. The only thing that has EVER been concluded in court is that there wasn't any PROOF that Nungesser committed the rape, therefore they had to hold him NOT RESPONSIBLE for the rape. There was no conclusion that Sulkowicz was lying. This connection exists entirely in your head.
In fact, as I'm sure you remember, Nungesser's entire case against the university depended on proving that they wereallowing Sulkowicz to lie about him, and it was fucking DISMISSED. All that evidence FAILED him,IN COURT, and yet you seem to believe she's been conclusively proven to be lying.(feels)
Oh, you mean all that's stuff that's beenexplicitly addressedby her and reasonably explained, in detail? All that stuff that in no way contradicts her story but supports it entirely? All that stuff?
OK, so all of this to say that you presume to be the arbiter of "reasonable"... proof be damned! "It's just morereasonable, I tell you!"
What's that asinine word you keep using?Creatard?And I don't need to link an irrelevant video, either. Your actual words paint a much better picture.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
"Your" "evidence" is not "proof".
Her story matches the evidence exactly.
There's still no proof she's lying.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Yeah pretty much.
Also, didn't read that massive wall of nonsense because scanning it I don't see a single instance of Tanoomba demonstrating any of my statements which he claims are fallacies actually are.
Just a lotta butthurt.
I will hit this one real quick though:
See, this is why you are a retard, Tanoomba, who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Technicallyanything can be cited as evidence for anything. The only question is whether or not that evidence actually supports the claim being made, which is what we designate as good evidence.
So yes, you could cite the sky being blue and the grass being green as evidence for any claim. It just wouldn't be good evidence, and wouldn't support the claim being made.
Which is the same case we have with all your straw grasping attempts to hand wave away all the evidence which contradicts you, and with your attempt to interpret everything that remains in the most favorable light possible for Sulkowicz: A bunch of bad evidence which does not support the claim you think it does being cited in desperate hope it'll fool someone.
It doesn't fool anyone but yourself.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Proofing is reserved for that which can be definitionally demonstrated to be true, you retard. We don't prove the theory of gravity is true. We demonstrate the model of gravity is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence of how mass operates in space, you fucking retard. We don't prove Emma was raped or not raped. We demonstrate the evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion as to whether she was raped or not.
Your logical fallacy is equivocation and burden shifting.
You fucking retard.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
"You can't prove she was lying" = "You can't prove she wasn't raped"
Whether you like it or not, this is the crux of your defense, and it is a burden shifting fallacy. The conclusion she is a liar is based on the failure to demonstrate her claim was true.
We can simply replace "Rape" with any other claim and prove this to be the case.
"You can't prove Emma doesn't have an invisible intangible purple yeti in her pocket, therefore you cannot conclude she is a liar when she claims to have one!"
"You can't prove Emma doesn't have a magic teapot floating around Jupiter, so you can't conclude she's a liar when she claims to have one!"
etc.
Stupid stupid stupid stupid.
Tanoomba logic.
Whether you like it or not, this is the crux of your defense, and it is a burden shifting fallacy. The conclusion she is a liar is based on the failure to demonstrate her claim was true.
We can simply replace "Rape" with any other claim and prove this to be the case.
"You can't prove Emma doesn't have an invisible intangible purple yeti in her pocket, therefore you cannot conclude she is a liar when she claims to have one!"
"You can't prove Emma doesn't have a magic teapot floating around Jupiter, so you can't conclude she's a liar when she claims to have one!"
etc.
Stupid stupid stupid stupid.
Tanoomba logic.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
See, shit like this is what shows me you're not even paying attention. I mean, I get it, I'm not worth the effort. That's the rationale, right? You've admitted many times that you can't and won't take me seriously, that you not only don't read my posts but actively announce itevery time.
I am not asserting a contrary position. I am putting aside my personal biases and demanding nothing but PROOF before I commit to a conclusion. I got burned on this before, remember? During the Zimmerman trial? I legit bought into the whole "He was a racist looking for trouble" narrative. Once the facts of the case were made clear, through the presentation of actual court-recognized evidence (and, dare I say it, actualproof?), I was proven wrong. Now, I'm not going to commit to a narrative before I see PROOF. I thought you had learned the same lesson after your "Kentucky is a Northern State" debacle. Apparently you've learned nothing.
Yes. There was no PROOF he had committed the crime. Whether or not he actually raped her, the University made the right call there. Sulkowicz could not prove her story, it was basically her word about something that happened 8 months ago. Regardless of how honest someone is being, if they have nothing to prove their story then you can't find someone guilty of a crime based on their word alone. Also: Water is wet.
Yeah. That's what happens when you have no PROOF.
Bullshit. Show me one contradiction about their relationship.
Wait a second... What the fuck? You're also assuming these are all false claims? Friends and sympathizers? You mean "Josie" (a pseudonym, so you can't accuse her of being an attention whore), who as far as we know didn't know Sulkowicz at all when she was allegedly assaulted by him and even told her boyfriend and friends about it immediately after it happened? The same Josie who made an accusation against him that he wasfound guilty of?Until he appealed it and won it simply because she chosenot to participate(she had already graduated) from that point on? That's what you're basing this "false claim" on?
Not because of lack of evidence, mind you. Again, she told people about his behavior and her case against him was initially successful. There is absolutely evidence she was telling the truth.
"Doesn't matter! Doesn't count! Lalalalalalala! It's just morereasonableif you assume they're lying! Take my word for it!"
...And you have the nerve to criticise me on my syllogistic reasoning? FFS...
What "behavior" is that? What the fuck does that have to do with whether or not she was raped?
OK, OK, now that you've explicitly acknowledged what a "non sequitur" is... THIS IS IT.
"She carried a mattress around at her university (and during her graduation!), therefore she was not raped."
- Jhodi
"Show and entertainment"? Are you fucking kidding me? She was extremely careful about how she chose to share her performance. She explicitly pleads with you not to watch the video for the wrong reasons. The fact that people do anyway is part of why it works as an art piece. She's actually making the point that people will interpret her actions as working against her, even when she is doing nothing but implicitly simulating exactly what (allegedly) happened to her. Whether or not she was aware that her performance debunked some of the more popular "gotcha!" theories (see: "Bruises?") I don't know, but it's certainly a powerful piece, and itin no wayimplies that she is lying.
Your fallacy is non-sequitur (yes, I'm sure this time).
"She re-enacted her rape, therefore she was not raped."
- Jhodi
Sure. Based on your subjective interpretation. And I have ignored exactly NONE of it. I gave you a reasonable and feasible explanation every step of the way, one that fits perfectly with all the available evidence, requires no leaps of faith or irrationality whatsoever, and has never been proven wrong in court.
I have never claimed that none of that exists. I have acknowledged it repeatedly as exactly what it is: A subjective interpretation of the non-conclusive available evidence. You're the only one who's been ignoring inconvenient information.
We don't know what happened.
- Status