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

Chaos: "This is cray, watching some of you guys lose your shit over Hillary. I don't prefer her either, I get it, but damn dudes. Live in reality."

It's like Sarkeesian all over again.

Chaos: "Tanoomba, the goal of these sandbox games is to simulate the real world to the extent possible. You say "real life is not a video game" but if the design of the game is approached from this standpoint, how can you say that in one scenario it is not "implicitly encouraged" and in another it is? Just because a thing is possible does not mean you are encouraged to do it, implicitly or explicitly, real life or video game."

I disagree from your very first statement. The goal of sandbox games is not to "simulate the real world to the extent possible". In fact, it's damn near the opposite. Sandbox games create an idealized and fantastical caricature of things we know about "real life". There are a million things sandbox games could do to be more realistic but would compromise their entertainment value. Video games are supposed to be fun, we play them to ESCAPE real life. If your character had to stop to take shit every few hours, that might be more realistic but it wouldn't be more fun. Heck, even GTA lets you break traffic rules directly in front of the cops with no consequences, not because they couldn't implement getting pulled over for going through a red light, but because it's more important to be able to speed around the city (from a gameplay perspective) than have realistic cop behavior. Heck, do you think getting "wasted" in a hail of gunfire and explosions, only to wake up in front of a hospital none the worse for wear is realistic?

When we play video games, WE KNOW WE ARE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES. Modern games in particular (with a few exceptions) have all but done away with harsh punishments for failing. No more starting from the beginning after a game over like the NES days, now we've got save points and cumulative stat growth that allow you to just fuck around if you feel like it and not "ruin" your game. Have you ever even PLAYED the GTA games? Going on joyrides and mowing down pedestrians is a lot of fun when you're doing it in a video game, not so much when you're doing it in real life.

So no, Chaos, language used to describe video games most certainly does not necessarily apply to how we would describe real life situations, and it's excessively silly to attempt to group them together.

Doc: "Tanoomba doesn't care about any of this. Anything that feels mean is wrong."

Coming from some schmuck too terrified to back up ANYTHING he ever says about me, this is rich.

Doc: "You've excreted more than enough evidence of everything I've said about you all over this board."

Doc, you've become exceptionally good at making the same comment over and over and over again. You've found a million ways to make the same content-free, baseless accusation (that you've never come CLOSE to backing up in any way) and you're not going to stop until you've exhausted them all, apparently.




Gravy: "Can we get back to talking about Anita Sarkeesian please? So what do you think, firecracker or limp fish in bed?"

That is a toughie. She could be the stereotypical "prude on the stage, animal beneath the sheets" archetype, or she might think that giving in to her female sexual urges perpetuates some harmful notion about women as sex objects or something. Unfortunately, she's probably not going to address this issue in an interview any time soon (missed a great opportunity there, Colbert).

Khalid: "I guess that is one way to proclaim yourself prescient. Say tons of stupid shit and then proclaim that you bet in the future people will call you on it."

Or, you know, claim that you will almost certainly bring up something irrelevant because you are unable or unwilling to make a valid point about the subject at hand (which is what happened).

But since you like to dig up the past, how about we look back at an unanswered question I had for you, Khal?

Remember this?

Khalid: "Stop attacking me by saying what I'm saying is lies. I believe them to be true. If anything, it is a misunderstanding, as I really currently believe you said these things. Why say I am lying? Why do you continue to call my criticism of you an attack?"

Tanoomba: "No, Khal, it's not a misunderstanding after something has already been clarified, especially after it's been clarified repeatedly.
You have said MANY TIMES that I changed my stance about drunken rape and claimed to be right "all along". That's bullshit. The post I link to the most often in that thread is the one in which I break down exactly what I said and I show how Cad in particular kept insisting I was wrong EVEN WHEN my point was clearly that it is, in fact, possible to be too drunk to give legal consent. And in that very post I state in no uncertain terms that I was wrong in my initial assessment of rape law. So you see, Khal, if I'm up front about being wrong in the beginning, then by definition I am NOT claiming to have been right "all along". This is not the first time I've mentioned this, but you keep ignoring it outright because it doesn't fit the narrative you're desperately trying to push on me. So either you're a dishonest asshole (which is not a rare trait among posters here), you're intentionally ignoring any information that could contradict you (even though it's been pointed out many times), or you're actually too stupid to realize that admitting being wrong and claiming to be right all along are mutually exclusive. Which is it?"

You made an objectively false statement and repeated it ad nauseum, even after being presented with hard evidence. This is not debatable. You then made a (probably sarcastic) comment about it being a misunderstanding, implying that you weren't intentionally lying.

Since the evidence was presented to you BEFORE you continued to repeat your misinformation, there are only 3 possibilities:
1) You're dishonest
2) You intentionally ignore information that proves you wrong
3) You don't understand that admitting having been wrong is incompatible with claiming to have been right "all along"

So which is it? Last time you ignored the question, then claimed not to understand the question, then used Cad and Lithose as your "get out of being proven a liar" card. I hope this time you can be a little more honest and give me a real answer.

Doc: "I believe by Tanoomba logic this makes him a disgusting person, an asshole, and he's not helping anything."

Well, it might if I baited Khalid into bringing up the past again, which I did not.

Khalid: "Or the other possibility, that you are a dishonest hack."

Dishonest how? Can you back that up?

You repeatedly stated that I claimed I was "right all along" even after changing my stance in the drunk rape discussion. You have never backed that up with quotes by me (you couldn't, as they don't exist). I, on the other hand, found incontrovertible evidence that I admitted I was wrong LONG before you let up with your false narrative. When I called you out on lying, you tried to claim it was a "misunderstanding", which is impossible when evidence had been presented to you many times. All of this is ironclad fact and has been objectively proven, by the way, unlike your perpetually hollow claims.

Therefore, are you
1) ...a liar?
2) ... prone to ignoring evidence that doesn't suit your narrative needs?
3) ... so stupid you can't understand the difference between admitting I was wrong and claiming I was "right all along"?

Don't turn my thread into a house of lies, Khalid. I am open and honest with you, and I can admit when I am wrong (even about solar roadways, as I have shown). How about you man up and admit you were wrong for once? You outright lied because it was fun to dogpile on Tanoomba. Face up to it and stop skirting the issue like a little bitch. You were more than happy to dig up the past to take shots at me, but you can't face your own fuckups? For shame.

And don't worry about Chaos. He's a big boy and can take care of himself. I have tremendous respect for him as a poster and am honored that he is willing to argue with me without resorting to the dishonest and shitty tactics people are so fond of using against me. The discourse between us has been nothing but civil. You could learn a lot from him.

Doc: "(Baseless comment backed by nothing)"

How many have you got left?