The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Just skimming it and this pops up.
Emma Sulkowicz | Newslines
Columbia decides, on appeal, that Nungesser is 'not responsible" for sexual assault on Josie.
Your logical fallacy is a strawman.
No one is assuming anything but you, you retard.
You are literally the only person whose arguments here rely on
1. possibility over plausibility
2. assumptions
3. willful denial of the evidence
You and only you.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
1. Still demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what the word proof means. Equivocation fallacy
2. Your entire case is predicated solely on interpreting every bit of evidence as favorably as possible for Sulkowicz, regardless how naive and willfully ignorant you must choose to be do to so, so no, you are not
3. Your logical fallacy is burden shifting. The default position is disbelief in the face of a positive claim. Her positive claim is she was raped. She has failed utterly to demonstrate that her version of events is a parsimonious and explanatory model for what occurred that night. Thus she has failed, utterly, to demonstrate her claim is true. We are not required to prove a negative, aka that she was not raped, in order to conclude she is a liar. The fact that she has made a claim as serious as this one is, failed to support it, then went on a campaign to destroy this person's credibility and life afterwards is all the evidence we need to justify a conclusion that she is, in fact, a liar.
Deal with it.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What is this? What level of the Matrix are we in? What is the possible context in which this makes sense?
I'm not demanding absolute evidence of a negative. I'm demanding proof of a positive: The positive claim that Sulkowicz is lying about being raped. There's no short cut, dude.
Also, I think you misunderstood my claim (again). My claim is that we don't know what happened. Conclusive proof doesn't exist that supports either conclusion. It happens sometimes.
So why you do you think it's your job to assume she is lying, despite no proof she is lying? As far as you know, she's somebody who made a claim she couldn't back up. You haveno fucking clueif she's lying. There is, literally and explicitly, nothing but your "FEELS" telling you that she is.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Except you are, because to prove she is lying would require us to prove she wasn't raped, and you can't prove or disprove past events. You can only offer a model which is explanatory with the fewest number of assumptions required by following the principles of logic and rational inquiry and parsimony.
It is everyone's responsibility to practice rational skepticism properly. Something you have failed to do every minute of every second of your life.
If you make a claim you cannot back up, you're just talking out of your ass.
If, after you make said claim, and fail to back it up with evidence, you lose your fucking mind and begin fighting reality to force it to see things your way, you're a liar.
That's why Emma, and you, are both liars.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, because it's entirely feasible that she was raped and wouldn't have any proof of it at the point she initially made the accusation.
Remember the "Jackie" case? She lied about being raped. She LIED about BEING RAPED. You see how I can say that confidently? It's because she was a PROVEN liar. Her story had many inconsistencies. There existed much hard evidence that allowed us all to conclude that what she described never happened. There's none of that with Sulkowicz.
That's a ridiculous claim. You're a fucking child. Rapes happen. Her story is entirely feasible, and in no way contradicted by any of the available evidence. Can she prove he did it? No, so the guy is found "not responsible". Other than that,we don't know if it happened.
"Ridiculous straw man = a sound, logical argument."
- Jhodi
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tough fucking shit.
That's why making excuses for stupid bitches not reporting sexual assaults right when they occur is so fucking counter productive and stupid for you goddamn SJW retards.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Lord, give me strength.
You see where it says "on appeal" there? That means he originally was found RESPONSIBLE. You know, like I've previously acknowledged? In the very post you're quoting? And the only reason he won his appeal is because "Josie" was DONE at that point and just abandoned her case. You know, since she hadalready graduatedand wanted to put that shit behind her so she could get on with her life? Holy shit, dude, you are fingers-in-ears "lalalalalala" personified.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
"I was so ashamed I was raped I didn't report it for 8 months to the University, after repeated attempting to meet up with my supposed rapist to "chill sesh's" after the supposed event, and I was so ashamed I was raped I didn't report it to the police for two years, but I wasn't so ashamed I was raped that I wouldn't carry my mattress around campus, make sure the person I accused's life is totally wrecked and costing him and his family tens of thousands or more dollars in legal fees, and I wasn't so ashamed of being raped that I would "re-enact" it on film and then make sure and publish it to the internet for the world to see, but that doesn't mean you can't conclude I'm a liar! Its perfecly feasible I was raped!"
Tanoomba logic.
Tanoomba logic.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
So?
An acquittal is an acquittal.
A conviction which is overturned on appeal is an unjust conviction.
Dumb fuck. You might have double and triple jeopardy in Canadistan, but down here in Democracy land, homie don't play dat.
"He was convicted of murder originally, but on appeal he was exonerated because the DNA evidence demonstrated he could not have committed the crime" does not equate to "But he was still found guilty during the first trial, so he's a murderer"
But its okay when the false accusation is rape.
Once accused of rape, you must bear the Scarlet Letter for life. There is no trial, no jury, no judge, and no appeals.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
According to...Josie.
Here's what really happened: She made up a lie, and when the heat his Columbia and they started to realize they were infringing on Nungesser's legal rights, they started backing down from hanging him based on spurious charges from dishonest interlocuters. She knew she had no evidence to support her claim, just like Emma, and so she ran like hell away from the giant explosive device she had just lit the fuse on.
Dumb fuck.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, not at all. You would just have to prove that she's lying about what happened. It's not an unfeasible thing to ask for proof for. When "Jackie" made up all her shit, there was plenty of HARD EVIDENCE that made it super-obvious she was lying, including plenty of shit that wasn't directly about the rape. Why don't we have that here?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Literally the exact argument you are making.
See, its you who feels that just because someone makes an accusation means it must be plausibly true.
It is we who are saying "No evidence supports this claim. Therefore this claim is not true. Therefore people who continue to promote this claim in the face of the overwhelming evidence they are wrong are liars."
You, Emma, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham: All liars. For the exact same reasons.
See, its you who feels that just because someone makes an accusation means it must be plausibly true.
It is we who are saying "No evidence supports this claim. Therefore this claim is not true. Therefore people who continue to promote this claim in the face of the overwhelming evidence they are wrong are liars."
You, Emma, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham: All liars. For the exact same reasons.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I never made that claim. Straw man.
"We"? Who are you, the fucking Queen? Speak for yourself, nutjob.
The default response to somebody making a claim you don't see immediate proof of depends entirely on the context.
If your mom tells you someone cursed at her for not reacting to the green light quickly enough, you'll immediately believe her. If your teenage kid says he has no idea how that little baggie of weed got under his mattress, you'd be justified in thinking there was a chance he was lying. If some stranger you don't know claims to have been raped, you don't know what happened.
Thing is, the obvious liars are not difficult to call out. It's not unusual for there to be ample hard evidence (see: the "Jackie" case) that someone is lying through their teeth. That hard evidence doesn't exist here. It's OK to admit we don't have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. It's OK to say "I don't know" sometimes.
"Overwhelming evidence"
- Jhodi
Because you're retarded?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Reminder: Jhodi is OK with judging people guilty of serious crimes when no proof exists they have committed these crimes.
Reminder: None of the "evidence" that Sulkowicz is lying has ever been acknowledged as such in any court, ever. In fact, that very evidence was presented to support Nungesser's case against the university, which was dismissed. Jhodi still somehow believes this evidence is rock solid, despite literally none of it carrying any legal weight whatsoever (which is how he himself says we measure the validity of evidence).
Reminder: Jhodi continues to claim Sulkowicz's behavior is evidence she was lying, despite the fact that her behavior does not contradict her story in any way, and in fact supports it entirely. He thinks that by ignoring this, he can will it into not being true.
Reminder: Jhodi continues to demonstrate exactly the "creatard" logic he accuses me of using. He has come to a conclusion not backed up by facts, actively and intentionally ignored any and all information that doesn't suit his narrative, and ultimately boils his argument down to being the authority on what "reasonable" is (literally "feels over facts").
...Just wanted to draw attention to some inconvenient points Jhodi keeps ignoring.
- Status