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

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Give it a fucking rest with the creationist/religion bullshit.

Why would we stop making this clear analogy, that clearly pisses you off no less, when it fits so perfectly, and your butthurt over it and complete refusal to grasp it, demonstrates you are wrong so profoundly?

Not only will we continue to point this out to you, but we'll do it ever more often since we know it hits you right where it hurts and is getting through to you.

Your logic is the logic of Ken Ham.

Deal with it. Process it. Let it sink it.

There. Good boy.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Then you'll continue being wrong and everyone will continue laughing at you because you are a retard.

Oh, they'll laugh regardless. It has nothing to do with me being wrong, nor has it ever.

hodj_sl said:
Why would we stop making this clear analogy, that clearly pisses you off no less, when it fits so perfectly, and your butthurt over it and complete refusal to grasp it, demonstrates you are wrong so profoundly?

Not only will we continue to point this out to you, but we'll do it ever more often since we know it hits you right where it hurts and is getting through to you.

Knock yourself out. I have already explained why your analogy doesn't fit at all but, as usual, you are tuning out any and all information that doesn't suit your narrative. You know, like creationists do. But if it makes you feel better to keep trolling me with pointless and incorrect comparisons, more power to you.

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Oh, they'll laugh regardless. It has nothing to do with me being wrong, nor has it ever.

No, it really does.

You're argument has been completely destroyed here.

You are wrong.

Everyone knows it.

You are Sye Ten Bruggenoomba. A big fat joke.

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Knock yourself out. I have already explained why your analogy doesn't fit at all

See, here's what you don't get: There's nothing you can say that can "explain why the analogy doesn't fit at all" because the mere fact that I can remove the word "God" and replace it with the phrase "Emma was raped" and the format of the fallacy does not change at all is all the evidence needed to demonstrate, before you can even begin typing your "rebuttal", that the analogy does fit, and therefore your argument suffers from the same foundational flaw that the Presuppositionalist apologetics argument suffers from.

That's how syllogistic logic works, see, which you would know had you not skipped a basic logic class in your education. The format proves the fallacy, not the context, not the substance. The format of the argument is flawed.

You cannot fix that without altering the format, fundamentally, so attempting to try to argue your way out of it does not and cannot work.

Deal with it.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

hodj_sl said:
No, it really does.

You're argument has been completely destroyed here.

You are wrong.

Everyone knows it.

You are Sye Ten Bruggenoomba. A big fat joke.

No, YOUR argument (that you made up for me) has been destroyed.

When you're ready to address anything I've ever actually said, I'll be waiting.

LOL at "everyone knows it". You are the very height of arrogance, Jhodi. Apparently you didn't learn your lesson after your hubris led to your humiliating defeat at my hands during your alt account accusations.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

hodj_sl said:
See, here's what you don't get: There's nothing you can say that can "explain why the analogy doesn't fit at all" because the mere fact that I can remove the word "God" and replace it with the phrase "Emma was raped" and the format of the fallacy does not change at all is all the evidence needed to demonstrate, before you can even begin typing your "rebuttal", that the analogy does fit, and therefore your argument suffers from the same foundational flaw that the Presuppositionalist apologetics argument suffers from.

That's how syllogistic logic works, see, which you would know had you not skipped a basic logic class in your education. The format proves the fallacy, not the context, not the substance. The format of the argument is flawed.

You cannot fix that without altering the format, fundamentally, so attempting to try to argue your way out of it does not and cannot work.

Deal with it.

See, here's what you don't get: I never claimed "Emma was raped". Your entire stance is based on a claim I've never made. When you understand that, we might actually have something to discuss.

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Again.

No one made up your argument for you.

Your argument is what it is.

It is formatted incorrectly, such that it is a fallacy by definition.

Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of claiming that 2 and 2 summated together equate to 5. No matter how much you try to argue the context of what you mean by 2, it is irrelevant. No matter how you try to context and type your way out of it, at the end of the day, 2 and 2 summated together equate to 4. Your format is invalid, thus your argument form is invalid.

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
See, here's what you don't get: I never claimed "Emma was raped". Your entire stance is based on a claim I've never made. When you understand that, we might actually have something to discuss.

We are not going to restart the debate you've already lost when this forum community, about 10 different people, have all explained to you, in detail, why you are retarded on this issue.

If you wish to discuss this further you must either

1. Admit you are wrong because your format is an invalid structure
2. Reformulate your argument and try again

That's it. Otherwise, you can just take your happy little dipshit ass back about 15 pages and reread the conversation until you figure it out.

Thanks but no thanks.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

Jhodi: "Your claim that the sky is green is incorrect. Provide evidence of this claim or admit you are wrong."

Tan: "I never claimed the sky was green."

Jhodi: "Did you get that proof yet? You're a creationist."

Tan: "I never claimed the sky was green. Can you show where I have?"

Jhodi: "Still no proof? Creationism!"

Tan: "I never claimed the sky was green."

Jhodi: "It's too late. You lost the moment you claimed the sky was green."

Tan: "I never claimed the sky was green. Here are mutliple posts where I explicitly make it clear that is not, nor was it ever my stance."

Jhodi: "Creationism!"

You are unfathomably retarded.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

Hey Jhodi, all this talk about my stance, why don't you tell me what you actually think my stance is?

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Its very simple, Tanoomba.

No amount of typing, none of which I'm reading, is going to fix the format of your argument.

So again

hodj_sl said:
We are not going to restart the debate you've already lost when this forum community, about 10 different people, have all explained to you, in detail, why you are retarded on this issue.

If you wish to discuss this further you must either

1. Admit you are wrong because your format is an invalid structure
or
2. Reformulate your argument and try again

That's it. Otherwise, you can just take your happy little dipshit ass back about 15 pages and reread the conversation until you figure it out.

Thanks but no thanks.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

Why don't you tell me what you actually think my stance is?

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Because I don't need to and that would be playing your stupid game of resetting the debate every morning so you can shit post and masturbate yourself all day long.

I'd rather you be super frustrated all day like you've been the past two days.

So again

hodj_sl said:
We are not going to restart the debate you've already lost when this forum community, about 10 different people, have all explained to you, in detail, why you are retarded on this issue.

If you wish to discuss this further you must either

1. Admit you are wrong because your format is an invalid structure
or
2. Reformulate your argument and try again

That's it. Otherwise, you can just take your happy little dipshit ass back about 15 pages and reread the conversation until you figure it out.

Thanks but no thanks.

fanaskin · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:

This is what you are doing you imbecile

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Because I don't need to and that would be playing your stupid game of resetting the debate every morning so you can shit post and masturbate yourself all day long.

I'd rather you be super frustrated all day like you've been the past two days.

So again

It's not resetting anything. You've spent the last three days arguing against a stance I have never taken and tuning out the mountains of evidence that prove that was never my stance.

It's really easy to win arguments when you make up your opponent's stance. Heck, I just killed 3 dragons yesterday that never existed. Dragons, I tell you!

And yes, you do need to. You really do need to tell me what you think my stance is. The entire fucking point is that you're wrong about what my stance is, so trying to weasel your way out of admitting that isn't doing you any favors.

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Says he's not resetting anything.

Is begging me to allow him to reset the debate so he can shit post and furiously masturbate semantics for another week when the format of his claim is flawed and has been demonstrated so.

Thanks but no thanks.

Again.

hodj_sl said:
We are not going to restart the debate you've already lost when this forum community, about 10 different people, have all explained to you, in detail, why you are retarded on this issue.

If you wish to discuss this further you must either

1. Admit you are wrong because your format is an invalid structure
or
2. Reformulate your argument and try again

That's it. Otherwise, you can just take your happy little dipshit ass back about 15 pages and reread the conversation until you figure it out.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

fanaskin_sl said:
This is what you are doing you imbecile

Me: We don't know whether Sulkowicz was raped. (This is a fact.) I personally believe there's a decent chance she's telling the truth. Here's all the circumstantial evidence that led me to believe that. Having said that, our personal beliefs don't count for anything. All that counts is what can be proven. I am not claiming she was raped. I explicitly stated many times that we don't know if she was raped and that it can't be conclusively proven either way.

Jhodi: You claim she was raped! Provide proof! You're saying that if we can't prove something 100%, thenanything is possible! If you don't provide proof of your claim then you lose! Put up or shut up! You're a creationist!

If you can't see how this entire discussion has been Jhodi attempting (and failing) to literally force the discussion around a narrative HE made up, to suit HIS needs by making up arbitrary rules that automatically dismiss the things I've actually said, then there is no hope for you, child. Go, go deep into the woods. You will find a new life there. It will not be an easy life. You will face many challenges. But you will find mental peace and emotional security among the flora and fauna. Go, and be free.

Tanoomba · Jun 4, 2016

So, yet again, Jhodi refuses to even clarify what the fuck he's talking about.

More spineless cowardice from someone who put his foot in his mouth on day one and has been trying to re-write the rules of reality to try to save face ever since.

Lithose · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

Tanoomba_sl said:
- 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.

We don't know if god exists, there is no conclusive proof either way!

hodj · Jun 4, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
So, yet again, Jhodi refuses to even clarify what the fuck he's talking about.

You are now aware you are the only person confused about what has been going on in this thread.

As usual.

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

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

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

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

Well known agitator

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

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Vox Populi Jihadi