The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 30,402
- 50,771
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,318
- 140,078
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What did I claim is a fact that is not a fact? Jesus Christ, dude, make a fucking statement.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,318
- 140,078
- 19,525
- 72,216
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No. Your assumption that anything I have to say is influenced by the gender of whoever I'm talking about is sexist.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
It isn't an assumption. It is an inference after seeing your actions for years.
If Zimmerman had been a woman, you would have either ignored it or claimed that Trayvon was probably the aggressor.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Try to learn something of substance for once in your life, moron.
Belief in a positive claim is never the default position. There is nothing arbitrary about it. This is how proper reasoning is conducted.
You can double, triple and quadruple down on your rectal trauma over having to face this fact, but this fact will not change just because you need it to to continue justifying your demonstrably false and intractably broken position, founded in faulty reasoning, as I have already demonstrated, and you have utterly and totally failed to refute. Because it cannot be refuted. You have a basal failure, a foundation constructed on wet sand, this has been uncontestably demonstrated in detail.
Belief in a positive claim is never the default position. There is nothing arbitrary about it. This is how proper reasoning is conducted.
You can double, triple and quadruple down on your rectal trauma over having to face this fact, but this fact will not change just because you need it to to continue justifying your demonstrably false and intractably broken position, founded in faulty reasoning, as I have already demonstrated, and you have utterly and totally failed to refute. Because it cannot be refuted. You have a basal failure, a foundation constructed on wet sand, this has been uncontestably demonstrated in detail.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
And yet YOU believe the positive claim that Sulkowicz lied about being raped, despite there being no conclusive evidence that supports that.
It has been demonstrated that the broken position you made up for me is founded in faulty reasoning, yes. You have yet to actually address anything I've ever said. You've chosen to argue against a made-up position that no way reflects any stance I've ever taken.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
The horribly lop sided Kangaroo court found she was most likely not raped. Of course people are reasonably going to believe that's the case. Your argument (As Hodj said) is just like the religious argument for God...But you can't ABSOLUTELY prove he does NOT exist! Thus, saying he doesn't is foolish! Thus my positive claim should stand!
Sometimes in the big boy world, Tan, you have to make a reasonable decision based on overwhelming evidence. I can't prove beyond all doubt climate change exists, I'm going to still say it does because all the evidence points in that direction.
Once again, you're an idiot.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You know how I can tell Tanoomba didn't watch the video?
Because I just watched it right after posting it, and its still not done. Has about 3 minutes left.
Do we need any more proof that he isn't even interested in the least in trying to correct his terminally flawed position, founded in bad reasoning and a core misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works, and how he has failed to meet his burden in regards to demonstrating Emma was raped?
This sort of disingenuous disregard for the truth at its most basic level is the sign of a radical dogmatist, incapable of even allowing himself to question his own, profoundly flawed world view.
The comparison to Sye Ten Bruggencate, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are just more fitting by the minute. Tanoomba is a presuppositional rape apologist. This is his religion.
Because I just watched it right after posting it, and its still not done. Has about 3 minutes left.
Do we need any more proof that he isn't even interested in the least in trying to correct his terminally flawed position, founded in bad reasoning and a core misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works, and how he has failed to meet his burden in regards to demonstrating Emma was raped?
This sort of disingenuous disregard for the truth at its most basic level is the sign of a radical dogmatist, incapable of even allowing himself to question his own, profoundly flawed world view.
The comparison to Sye Ten Bruggencate, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are just more fitting by the minute. Tanoomba is a presuppositional rape apologist. This is his religion.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Let's hope you can be a little more reasonable than Jhodi.
- The kangaroo court did not find she was most likely not raped. They found there was insufficient evidence to hold Nungesser responsible. That is an altogether different from saying they found evidence she was lying, which is how you're presenting it. Despite Jhodi's unfathomably retarded claim otherwise, making a statement without the evidence to back it up does not equal lying.
- You're talking about false rape accusations. False rape accusations, as you well know, can destroy lives. It is foolish to presume someone is guilty of a serious crime if there is no hard evidence to support that claim.
- There is NOWHERE NEAR "overwhelming evidence" that suggests she was lying. This seems like the part you guys have the most difficulty with. There is, at best, circumstantial evidence and, as I have repeatedly shown, ALL of that evidence has an alternate, perfectly reasonable and feasible explanation that doesn't involve her lying. Just because you WANT it to mean something, doesn't mean it does.
- I'm not saying, nor have I ever said "anything is possible because we can't conclusively prove anything". Give it a fucking rest with the creationist/religion bullshit. It is completely inapplicable in this situation and the more you guys come back to it the dumber you look. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. There is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF EITHER WAY. That is not a religious claim so stop trying to present it as such.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, Jhodi, I will not. You're making claims (not just expressing you opinion) that aren't backed up by facts. I will rub your nose in it until you understand not to shit on the living room rug any more.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Then you'll continue being wrong and everyone will continue laughing at you because you are a retard.
- Status