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

Holy, shit! Googling "NES gif" produces some gold, man:

hodj_sl said:

Not reading a word.

Click to expand...

Wait, if you're not reading a word (which is weird, considering this is coming right after I pointed out youwerereading my words), then how do you know if I'm linking court documents?

Are you just looking for red text?

All right, dude, here are mycourt documents.



...Just kidding. I just made the text red there.

But seriously, here are mycourt documents.




... Just kidding, again. That was lemonparty.org

How are you gonna know when I link my court documents?

pharmakos_sl said:

Hi Tanoomba, Hi hodj

How is your Saturday night going?

Click to expand...

Good morning, Jhodi.

Good morning, Jhodi's straw man.

How are you this Sunday?

Brikker_sl said:

We can't say for sure what happened but the behaviors afterwards and what evidence does exist points to the event not having occurred, so most rational people will come to the conclusion that the event, as described, was fabricated.

Click to expand...

What "evidence that does exist"?

No, seriously. What evidence? It's literally "Sulkowicz's behavior", which, for the millionth time, is entirely based on subjective interpretation, AKA "feels". Again, that exact same behavior could be interpreted by someone just as rational as you to SUPPORT Sulkowicz's story. Again, based on "feels".

People treat "feels" like it's a bad word. It's not. We all make feels-based deductions every day. We base our deductions on our personal experiences and things we have observed in our years on this planet. The problem lies in trying to pass off our "feels" as fact. No, Brikker, you do not have the authority to claim what conclusion "most rational people" will come to. That's a foolish statement literally based on nothing but more "feels". "I came to this conclusion and I believe I am rational, therefore I assume most rational people will come to the same conclusion." ...See the problem there?

If this were any other discussion, the claim that "most rational people" believe Sulkowicz was lying would be met with "based on what?" and demands for both stats on how many people believe that and proof that they are, in fact, rational. In fact, even if such stats were available they would be correctly called out as an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. However, because it's a narrative that's very popular on this message board, we have forgone basing these conclusions on facts and, as a group, decided that feels can substitute for facts in this situation. It's silly.

There is no proof Sulkowicz was lying. There is no proof she was telling the truth. You can personally believe whatever you like, but when it comes to what can be PROVEN, the only possible conclusion is "We don't know what happened".

hodj_sl said:

I already accepted his admission of defeat last night.

Click to expand...

Yes, you were riding that straw manreallyhard.

Actually, if you remember, the actual argument endedhere, when you failed to back up your claim that there was "hard evidence" suggesting Sulkowicz was lying.

Everything after that was just cake.

hodj_sl said:

^

No matter how many times you try to relitigate the battle, you already ceded it last night when you failed to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Click to expand...

You mean the claim I never made? You mean your straw man? That claim? It's the straw man, right?

(Meanwhile, he's conveniently ignoring his own failure to back up his original claim... The hypocrisy levels are over 9000...)

hodj_sl said:

I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Click to expand...

You don't get to dictate my paths or my claims.

I'm not going to defend yourSTRAW MAN. I understand that you think yourSTRAW MANscored you some kind of imaginary point yesterday, but yourSTRAW MANis just that: aSTRAW MAN.