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

Holy fucking shit, Jhodi, take your medication.

Everything you've just said has already been acknowledged by me. Denaut's post doesn't contradict me in any way, by the way.

hodj_sl said:

Your claim: A poe must be indistinguishable for everybody from the real thing to be a "true Poe" (its funny that, at the core, your logical fallacy is no true scotsman, by the way)

Click to expand...

Not my claim. My claim was that there needed to be a lack of OBVIOUS tipoffs that the content was satire in order for it to be Poe's Law. You pointed out that, as long as it's not obvious to SOMEBODY, no matter how ignorant that person is, it's still Poe's Law. I agreed, admitted I was wrong (that Poe's Law DOES include cases of reader stupidity that have nothing to do with the extremity of the views being parodied), but it still wasn't enough for you.

hodj_sl said:

The reality: A poe must be indistinguishablefor somefrom the real thing to be a true Poe.

That isn't some arbitrary definition. That isthe only definition. Denault proved it. I've proved it, here and in the Gamergate thread, and you, sir, are fucking done.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. This is exactly what I said your argument wasyesterday, remember?

hodj_sl said:

My definition does not include the necessity that someone who falls for a Poe beingstupid, dumb, gullible, or ignorant. These are options among a realm of possibilities for why someone would fall for a Poe.

Click to expand...

See? This is you stating, in no uncertain terms, that Poe's Law includes cases of stupidity, gullibility, and ignorance on the part of the person calling "Poe's Law". You were right, Jhodi. The calls of "Poe's Law" afterthis articlewere very much examples of exactly that. I was wrong.



In case you're still not clear on YOUR OWN ACTUAL ARGUMENT, here it is again:

hodj_sl said:

There is no other point or purpose to it, and the definition explicitly does not put the onus on the part of the people reading the parody to discern its parodic intent, itdoes not imply the people falling for the parody are stupid, ignorant, dumb, or gullible. Because, whilesome of them may be, others will not be.

Click to expand...

This is why I was wrong. I had assumed idiots calling "Poe's Law" because they were too stupid to recognize obvious satire were not actually illustrating Poe's Law. You showed me that the definition of Poe's Law doesn't specify level of stupidity on the reader's part, and YOU WERE RIGHT.

How long do you want to continue an argument you've already won? YES, Jhodi, when you're too stupid to recognize obvious satire (as was the case for that article), THAT'S STILL TECHNICALLY POE'S LAW. What the fuck else do you want from me?

Lithose_sl said:

Did, you're still an idiot lying about what he said (How would I have guessed the Hitman troll wouldn't be able to discern meaning from words). Of those, I think there is ONE legitimate case where you said "withdrawn" afterwords. The rest were long screeds where you insult the other person and might toss in there "I might be wrongifyou're really fucking stupid and also wrong, so really not wrong, sorry not sorry".

Go home, Tan, you're drunk.

Click to expand...

I didn't lie about anything, you slimy shitheel. Those were all cases where I admitted I was wrong. AGAIN: why don'tYOUlink a post whereYOUadmittedYOUwere wrong? Then we can compare it to mine.

hodj_sl said:

Back to reality denialism.

I quoted your claim directly.

Now its your turn to explain to us how our definition was "Arbitrary"

Nothing in your reply is relevant.

Its just more of the same old same old dishonesty from Tanoomba.

Click to expand...

I have read and understood your post.

I will respond to your query, as well as address your closing point.

I used "arbitrary" to describe Doc's criteria for what makes an acceptable admission of being wrong, NOT to describe the definition of Poe's Law.

My reply is entirely relevant because it highlights YOUR actual argument, which is that stupid people who don't recognize obvious satire are still technically illustrating Poe's Law. I linked to you clearly making this claim at least three times.

If there is anything else you'd like me to address, I will be more than happy to accommodate you.

hodj_sl said:

Back to reality denialism.

I quoted your claim directly.

Now its your turn to explain to us how our definition was "Arbitrary"

Nothing in your reply is relevant.

Its just more of the same old same old dishonesty from Tanoomba.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You made a simple, let's say honest mistake. I will patiently, and with complete and total honesty, explain that quote.

Doc said this:

Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:

The problem is you wrote a huge post of equivocating faggotry about how you were "wrong" (but not really lol) instead of just saying "Oops you're right, my bad".

Click to expand...

Do you see how he is criticizing not my actual argument but HOW I admitted I was wrong? According to Doc, if I had just said "Oops, you're right, my bad" it would have been acceptable. but because I actually explained why I was wrong (again: Because the definition of Poe's Law doesn't exclude cases of reader stupidity), that that was the problem.




Therefore, when I reply:

Tanoomba_sl said:

I apologize for not admitting I was wrong according to your arbitrary standards that one time.

Click to expand...

I am directly addressing the issue Doc had with the manner in which I admitted I was wrong. Do you see where my words say "not admitting I was wrong according to your arbitrary standards"? The "admitting I was wrong" part is very clearly what is being subject to Doc's "arbitrary standards" ("You should have said you were wrong LIKE THIS, not LIKE THIS!").

There is literally nothing in my post that suggests I considered the definition of Poe's Law "arbitrary".

hodj_sl said:

I don't need you "explanations", which are always self serving, and always wrong.

I need you to explain to us how our definition if arbitrary.

Because the only way our standard of proving you were wrong, which was holding your personal special snowflake definition of Poe's Law is directly contradicted by the actual definition of Poe's Law as it has been defined since 2005 when the term was coined, could be arbitrary, is if our definition was not the only definition of that term that has ever applied to it.

So again:

How is our definition of the term arbitrary?

Excuses are meaningless. You're about to get flood spammed by me with all those posts over and over till there's nothing left of this thread but a giant smoking crater.

Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary. Your definition (which is to say, THE definition) is not arbitrary. I never claimed it was.

I was wrong. You were right.

Why are you still arguing?

hodj_sl said:

Just quoted you doing exactly that.

The reason we are still arguing is because you are going to admit to your equivocating "I was wrong but not really because you're all stupid and your definition is arbitrary and your standards are arbitrary as a result and there's a double top secret decoder ring definition of Poe's Law that makes me right that I have invented whole cloth in my head so I'll always be right, even when I'm wrong nyah nyah nyah" horseshit faggotry.

Click to expand...

There is no alternate definition of "Poe's Law" for which I would be right. This is why I was wrong. I can't be any clearer. The actual definition of Poe's Law, as you clarified many times, does not exclude cases where the reader is too stupid to recognize obvious satire. Afterthis article, several people were stupid enough not to recognize the obvious satire. Still Poe's Law, according to THE definition. Therefore: I was wrong.

I am not, repeat,I am notgoing to defend yet another in a long list of straw men you create to misrepresent me.

I was wrong, your definition of Poe's law is not arbitrary, it is the only available definition.

The people who fell for that article (of which there were only one or two) were absolutely stupid and gullible, but the definition of Poe's Law still allows for that.