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

Ridas · May 15, 2016

This thread so nice.

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

hodj_sl said:
This entire thread, the Gamergate thread, the Rape thread in Screenshots, the Trayvon Martin thread, the Moon Landing was a hoax.

There are at least 5376 posts by you demonstrating these facts for all to see.

You are the only person who doubts it.

You're a lazy, lying coward, Jhodi.

... And everyone knows it.

hodj · May 15, 2016

I'm definitely lazy as shit.

I'll let the rest of this community decide on the rest of it on their own. Its irrelevant to me.

Mario Speedwagon · May 15, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're a lazy, lying coward, Jhodi.

... And everyone knows it.

I'm a man of respect around here. They love me around here, I'm a swell guy; you're a lying sack of shit! And everybody knows it.

Lithose · May 15, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
I see you missed the point.

It's possible (not a given, of course), that both presentations are part of a course on public speaking. Perhaps both students chose provocative topics to make a tongue-in-cheek presentation about. Perhaps they are being judged on their ability to speak and not on the subject at all. Are you suggesting that there are certain subjects students should not be allowed to discuss? Seems a little thought-policey to me.

Of course, since you're almost certainly going to try to straw man me, it's also possible that the "plague" guy is an overt racist who is genuinely trying to villainize white people. The information we are given from that single screen shot is extremely limited, and it is foolish for us to draw conclusions from it without knowing more. For any other topic this would be a given, but because it is PERCEIVED as "defending racist SJWs" (or however you'd like to straw man it) to even mention this obvious truth, then it's right into "us vs them" mode. No need for critical thought.

Tell me the truth Tan, do you believe someone could 'tongue in cheek' a presentation where they called the black race a plague? In an environment where comedians are regularly banned from universities for tap dancing softly around racial issues; where conservative speakers who are clearly not making racist remarks are violently protested ANYWAY for 'perceived micro-aggression' based racism? (By defending Capitalism and merit based systems)

Do you believe someone could go up there and say that and it would be fine, whatever the nature of the course? No? Then your defense here is racism, it is a clear case of bigotry and bias allowing for excuses for hatred against one side, and not the other.

But lets hear you write it out Tan...We'll all acknowledge it is simply a 'tongue in cheek'. But you go on and write out, with no qualifiers "Black people are a plague on civilization". That's all, make a post containing just that...We'll all know what you mean, so don't worry!

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
Tell me the truth Tan, do you believe someone could 'tongue in cheek' a presentation where they called the black race a plague?

Separate topic, but no, I don't.

And I'm not even saying it was "tongue in cheek", I'm sayingwe don't knowthe context. And I'm saying that that's enough reason not to jump to conclusions about what's happening in that picture. Do you take issue with this stance?

hodj · May 15, 2016

We don't know that there is no magic wizard in the sky generating the universe from whole cloth, therefore how dare you reach a conclusion that might exclude that option based on the evidence available!

And Moon Bat continues his rampant slide down the tunnels to becoming a flat Earther and a Creationist.

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

hodj_sl said:
We don't know that there is no magic wizard in the sky generating the universe from whole cloth, therefore how dare you reach a conclusion that might exclude that option based on the evidence available!

And Moon Bat continues his rampant slide down the tunnels to becoming a flat Earther and a Creationist.

What? More baseless bullshit? I refuse to believe it! Jhodi, say it ain't so!

hodj · May 15, 2016

Notice how you have no rebuttal?

Yeah.

Go masturbate to Matt Slick. He's used to making arguments along the same lines you're making here, retard.

hodj · May 15, 2016

But by all means, please, keep arguing from a position that without 100% perfect knowledge, we can't know anything, or reach any conclusions.

Now that I think about it, your argument is actually more in line with Sye Ten's presuppositional apologetics.

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Notice how you have no rebuttal?

Yeah.

Go masturbate to Matt Slick. He's used to making arguments along the same lines you're making here, retard.

hodj_sl said:
But by all means, please, keep arguing from a position that without 100% perfect knowledge, we can't know anything, or reach any conclusions.

Now that I think about it, your argument is actually more in line with Sye Ten's presuppositional apologetics.

Jesus Christ, dude.

Rebuttal to what? Your ridiculous straw man that (once again) didn't actually address anything I said?

I don't know who Matt Slick or Sye Ten are, if you think you're making a point there you're going to have to be a bit clearer.

By the way, since you're directly referencing "my argument", what is it exactly that you believe "my argument" to be? Clearing this up now might save us some time later.

hodj · May 15, 2016

There is no strawman. Your argument can literally be broken down to the simple syllogistic phrase "If you don't have absolute knowledge, you can't reach any conclusions about observed phenomena".

This is blatantly false, and the core argument of Creationists.

hodj · May 15, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Separate topic, but no, I don't.

And I'm not even saying it was "tongue in cheek", I'm sayingwe don't knowthe context. And I'm saying that that's enough reason not to jump to conclusions about what's happening in that picture. Do you take issue with this stance?

You twist it up and try to argue without 100% "context", which is just weasel words for "Things I can't demonstrate to exist, might exist, and therefore you don't have a right to reach a conclusion about this topic."

This is blatantly false.

We have enough information to reach a conclusion, so long as we remain willing to change our position when you finally grow a set of balls and put up or shut up.

The reality is that you don't have anything to put up, but rather than shut up, you've decided to plant your flag and to die on Retard Hill on the argument that we should presume more information is available that we simply do not have, therefore we must not reach a conclusion.

Nope. Not a valid argument.

We have plenty of proof to confirm our position. You have zero evidence to support yours. It is that simple. The argument we should withhold judgement for eternity while we wait for your Messiah to come back... I mean while we wait for you to dig up this evidence you wish existed to support your claim, is false.

We have reached a prelimary conclusion based on the available evidence. You disagree with it. The onus is on you to offer evidence to support your positive claim, as we already have evidence to support our positive claim.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim, yes or no?

hodj · May 15, 2016

Before you even bother responding, you merely have to fulfill the obligation of these two simple words: Prove it.

You can't. Its that simple. Your argument is strawgrasping nonsensicalities groping for a point in an ocean of pointlessness.

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

hodj_sl said:
You twist it up and try to argue without 100% "context", which is just weasel words for "Things I can't demonstrate to exist, might exist, and therefore you don't have a right to reach a conclusion about this topic."

This is blatantly false.

We have enough information to reach a conclusion, so long as we remain willing to change our position when you finally grow a set of balls and put up or shut up.

The reality is that you don't have anything to put up, but rather than shut up, you've decided to plant your flag and to die on Retard Hill on the argument that we should presume more information is available that we simply do not have, therefore we must not reach a conclusion.

Nope. Not a valid argument.

We have plenty of proof to confirm our position. You have zero evidence to support yours. It is that simple. The argument we should withhold judgement for eternity while we wait for your Messiah to come back... I mean while we wait for you to dig up this evidence you wish existed to support your claim, is false.

We have reached a prelimary conclusion based on the available evidence. You disagree with it. The onus is on you to offer evidence to support your positive claim, as we already have evidence to support our positive claim.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim, yes or no?

Holy Lord Jesus.

Somebody please tell me that Jhodi didn't just accidentally paste the script of a Snuggie infomercial. Thatcan'tjust be a coincidence, it can't. It's fucking uncanny.

hodj · May 15, 2016

All that crap you're desperately typing right now? Attempting to go line by line and come up with some way to twist your argument into some new format?

You're doing that because you have no evidence. Just fyi. Not gonna work. I'll skim it and if I don't see links demonstrating that your position is supported by any factual evidence, I'm going to ignore the entire post and just post those two little words again that you have no rebuttal to.

Prove it.

hodj · May 15, 2016

Oh, I see. You didn't even bother trying.

Even more pathetic.

What a sad little worm you've become.

Time to put up or shut up, retard.

Lithose · May 15, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Separate topic, but no, I don't.

And I'm not even saying it was "tongue in cheek", I'm sayingwe don't knowthe context. And I'm saying that that's enough reason not to jump to conclusions about what's happening in that picture. Do you take issue with this stance?

There is NO CONTEXT where that image would fly if the races were reversed. That's what I'm saying. You can't make one up. I'm shitting on your tongue in cheek one because guess what? That wouldn't work.

But lets play yours out--we all know this tongue in cheek. Don't explain anything, just type a post that says "The black race is a plague". All of us will know it's just you being funny, and 'tongue in cheek', so you can get away with doing it right? You're COMFORTABLE doing it, right?

hodj · May 15, 2016

I know when I took public speaking we were strongly encouraged not to make racist diatribes as our argument.

We were allowed to talk about controversial issues and take strong pro and against positions on them, but had someone shown up with a powerpoint presentation that said "All X are subhuman garbage that should be annihilated in fire", you would be probably expelled. At the minimum sanctioned.

But all that is besides the point, because before any of those arguments matter, Moon Bat here needs to cough up some evidence to support the fact that they could even be plausible explanations.

I've seen nothing of the sort from him. Just straw grasping, throw everything at the wall hoping something sticks, nonsense, the same argument patterns he always takes on every issue here.

He is serially dishonest to the core in this community.

Tanoomba · May 15, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
We should hold off on jumping to conclusions until we have more information.

DOES NOT EQUAL

hodj_sl said:
"If you don't have absolute knowledge, you can't reach any conclusions about observed phenomena".

(Of course, the greatest irony is if anybody tried to put words inyourmouth like this, you'd go on a multiple-page rant about how dishonest that was)

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

Pay to play forum

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Gold Recognition

Buzzfeed Editor

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Buzzfeed Editor

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー