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

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
You "admitted" you were wrong because our "arbitrary definition" of Poe's law that we "beat you over the head with" made you wrong, but really we're all so stupid we fell for an obvious Poe, so you were right anyway.

The rest of your post is your complete inability to actually comprehend what you've read.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
hodj_sl said:
The actual definition of Poe's law, as already provided to you in multiple citations, does not imply the people falling for the Poe are stupid.

Regardless what I said 10 months ago.

I do not define Poe's law.

I am not an authority.

The citations provided, and Denuat's historical retelling, demonstrate this clearly.

So you are still wrong, and still trying to imply people in this community are stupid, and you're brilliant, because like 2 people fell for a Poe, and you didn't.

I'm waiting for that apology.

There is no strawman.

If you think there is a strawman, then you need toprovide the syllogistic proof that such a fallacy has been made

You cannot, and will not, do so.

You never can.
Click to expand...
See?

Read it till you get it through your head, dumb fuck.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
See, I did not define Poe's Law, so trying to beat Dick over the head with my mistake from 10 months ago is just plain old Tanoomba desperation.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
I'm still reeling that you admitted you were wrong, frankly.

hodj_sl said:
The actual definition of Poe's law, as already provided to you in multiple citations, does not imply the people falling for the Poe are stupid.

Regardless what I said 10 months ago.

I do not define Poe's law.

I am not an authority.

The citations provided, and Denuat's historical retelling, demonstrate this clearly.

So you are still wrong, and still trying to imply people in this community are stupid, and you're brilliant, because like 2 people fell for a Poe, and you didn't.

I'm waiting for that apology.

There is no strawman.

If you think there is a strawman, then you need toprovide the syllogistic proof that such a fallacy has been made

You cannot, and will not, do so.

You never can.
Click to expand...
So what the fuck was I wrong about then? I never claimed the definition of Poe's Law was arbitrary. I never claimed the definition of Poe's Law makes assumptions about the stupidity of the reader. What was I wrong about? You've completely lost me, dude.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Pretty sure I just explained that.

You really do have trouble reading and comprehending what is read.

Are you sure you're actually an English teacher?

You been blowing smoke up our ass all these years on that shit as well?

Is English your first language, or French?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Well then I guess you better get back to reading the thread till you figure it out, huh?

Try Dicktrickle's last couple of posts to get you a head start.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
No, I'm pretty good with where things are now.

Turns out I was right and that that article was not an example of Poe's Law after all. Very, VERY weird that you would dig up an argument you had already won just to tell me you were wrong all along and my original stance was actually on point. Well, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

tumblr_n8cd1ynvk71s8tgw5o1_500.gif
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Let me give you a hint:

Your logical fallacy is a false dichotomy

Just because I misspoke 10 months ago, does not make you right by default.

Your claim that Poe's Law could imply stupidity is false.

Dick did a good job breaking that down for you.

And no amount of citing my "definition" from 10 months ago, that I've already admitted I misspoke when I stated it, changes that.

My being mistaken 10 months ago does not make you correct then, or now.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,235
Holy fuck why don't you just put each other on ignore? You each have over 1,000 posts in this thread BTW.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Our time is ours to spend it how we wish.

Value judgements are irrelevant there.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Oh, also your argument is an appeal to false authority fallacy.

I am not an authority on the definition of Poe's law.

You're also trying to drive a truck through a tiny error in my diction because, well, desperate faggot basically.

As you are so often wont to do, you grasp the thinnest straw of semantics you can to salvage yourself from drowning in a storm of your own stupidity.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
Your claim that Poe's Law could imply stupidity is false.
Click to expand...
Good thing I never made that claim, then.

In fact, my claim was exactly that opposite: That if it was someone's stupidity leading them to believe that obvious satire was someone's actual stance, that it SHOULDN'T count as Poe's Law. You know, since Poe's Law is intended to highlight how ridiculous and extreme some views are, not how some people will believe anything. Mr. Trickle agrees with that stance. 10 months ago, you STRONGLY disagreed, showed me that the definition makes no exceptions for stupidity, ignorance, gullibility, etc and I gave you the win. Now you're telling me you were wrong. Since that was your one and only argument countering my stance, then yes, by definition that means my stance was correct.


hodj_sl said:
My being mistaken 10 months ago does not make you correct then, or now.
Click to expand...
It actually does. I just showed you how.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Yeah, you did, and Dick showed you exactly, word for word how.

That if it was someone's stupidity leading them to believe that obvious satire was someone's actual stance, that it SHOULDN'T count as Poe's Law.
Click to expand...
Just more historical revisionism and denialism.

Pretty boring, honestly, Tanoomba.

I'm yawning at this. That's how weak it is.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
And really.

I and no one else cares what you think should be.

Your logical fallacy is mistaking the is for the ought to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.