The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Asks for evidence. A mountain of it is provided. Rejects it outright. Declares (despite having no authority to do so) what counts as evidence. Tries to backtrack on his claim. Continuously reiterates the fallacy that saying something without proof = lying.
Listen, Jhodi, we both know you're not interested in a discussion here. The only thing you're interested in is shitting on me, and you'll take any excuse you can get to do so. That's why you suck at this. You let your arrogance overpower your logic and reason.
Take a moment. Breathe deeply. Realize I'm not the bad guy here. Think about the argument you're trying to make. Think about the argument I'm trying to make. Try to exert a little self-control and refrain from using hyperbole and personal attacks instead of, you know, logic-based arguments. You'll get there eventually. You have it in you.
Listen, Jhodi, we both know you're not interested in a discussion here. The only thing you're interested in is shitting on me, and you'll take any excuse you can get to do so. That's why you suck at this. You let your arrogance overpower your logic and reason.
Take a moment. Breathe deeply. Realize I'm not the bad guy here. Think about the argument you're trying to make. Think about the argument I'm trying to make. Try to exert a little self-control and refrain from using hyperbole and personal attacks instead of, you know, logic-based arguments. You'll get there eventually. You have it in you.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This is what you have been doing since your claim that everyone should go live with a black family to better understand Trayvon's plight, yes.
Projection, failure to understand the basics of syllogistic reasoning, proclaiming fallacies you can't even define, much less demonstrate how my statements fit the syllogistic form of the fallacy you claim I am making, completely blatantly ignore all evidence not favorable to Emma, interpret every single piece of evidence as favorably for her as possible, while completely ignoring any exculpatory evidence for Nungesser, pretend jet fuel can't melt steel beams and the moon landing didn't happen.
Tanoomba logic.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You breathlessly hope a barely adult female was raped and the entire universe of philosophical understanding that has been developed over the past 4000 years can be tossed aside, solely so you can be right.
You are the enemy.
Just like Ken Ham is the enemy.
You are enemies of reason, logic, and truth.
That does, in fact, make you one of the worst people alive.
Izo
Tranny Chaser
- 20,151
- 25,353
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Non sequitur.
"I know you are but what am I?"
Never happened. Everything I've said has been syllogistically sound.
Bullshit. Every fallacy I've accused you of has been reflected in your very words (not in my re-imagining of your words, which is how you usually try to criticise me).
I've ignored nothing. Can you name one piece of evidence I've ignored? You can not.
My personal interpretation, as I've said repeatedly, is worthless. Actual proof is not subject to interpretation. There is no proof in this case that supports either conclusion.
Again, I've ignored nothing. Prove otherwise. YOU, on the other hand, have ignored plenty, as I have proven with YOUR OWN WORDS.
More non sequitur and hyperbole.
So you wrote all that and didn't even attempt to make a point relevant to the conversation. You can try to make this about me all you want, but I've been a lot more careful than you since we started discussing this and I've got WAY more dirt on you than you've got on me. I'd prefer if we were mature enough to not make this a mud-slinging contest and just try to discuss the facts, but if you absolutely insist on making it personal I'm not going to back down.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Crying about a spelling error or grammatical errors on the internet is the surest sign you've lost.
Congrats faggot.
A non sequitur fallacy is a formal fallacy of irrelevancy wherein an argument is made with a conclusion which does not follow from its premises, you fucking idiot.
How does the sentence I stated which you quoted and then said "Non sequitur" to fit the formal definition of this fallacy, you fucking moron?
Congrats faggot.
A non sequitur fallacy is a formal fallacy of irrelevancy wherein an argument is made with a conclusion which does not follow from its premises, you fucking idiot.
Here is the syllogistic format for this fallacy
Now, here's where the rubber hits the road, you fucking idiot
How does the sentence I stated which you quoted and then said "Non sequitur" to fit the formal definition of this fallacy, you fucking moron?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Some more forms of the fallacy. Try to fit my sentence into any of them, you fucking retard
Another common non sequitur is this:
If A is true, then B is true.
A is false.
Therefore, B is false.
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
A is true or B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is not true.*
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.
B is not true.
Therefore, A is true.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
All Zs are Bs.
Y is a B.
Therefore, Y is a Z.
Which one of these syllogisms does my statement fit, exactly, you fucking retard?
Another common non sequitur is this:
If A is true, then B is true.
A is false.
Therefore, B is false.
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
A is true or B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is not true.*
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.
B is not true.
Therefore, A is true.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
All Zs are Bs.
Y is a B.
Therefore, Y is a Z.
Which one of these syllogisms does my statement fit, exactly, you fucking retard?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
There's plenty of evidence that Sulkowicz was raped. There's no HARD evidence, there's no CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there's a whole bunch of evidence that suggests she's been telling nothing but the truth about being raped.
There's plenty of evidence that Sulkowicz was lying. There's no HARD evidence, there's no CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there's a whole bunch of evidence that suggests she's been lying about being raped.
How can both statements be true? Because all the circumstantial, non-conclusive evidence that exists is very much subject to interpretation and personal bias. People who want to believe that she's lying will interpret the evidence in a way that supports that theory. People who want to believe she's being honest will interpret the evidence to support that, too. The only thing that makes one conclusion more valid than the other is (say it with me) FEELS. Evidence is subject to interpretation. That's why we HAVE lawyers. Proof is not.
This is why personal interpretations are worth shit. All that matters is what can be OBJECTIVELY PROVEN, which in this case is NOTHING. We don't know what happened, and anybody who claims otherwise is literally arguing feels over facts.
There's plenty of evidence that Sulkowicz was lying. There's no HARD evidence, there's no CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there's a whole bunch of evidence that suggests she's been lying about being raped.
How can both statements be true? Because all the circumstantial, non-conclusive evidence that exists is very much subject to interpretation and personal bias. People who want to believe that she's lying will interpret the evidence in a way that supports that theory. People who want to believe she's being honest will interpret the evidence to support that, too. The only thing that makes one conclusion more valid than the other is (say it with me) FEELS. Evidence is subject to interpretation. That's why we HAVE lawyers. Proof is not.
This is why personal interpretations are worth shit. All that matters is what can be OBJECTIVELY PROVEN, which in this case is NOTHING. We don't know what happened, and anybody who claims otherwise is literally arguing feels over facts.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
You're attempting to connect a straw man about an unrelated topic to this current discussion. There's actually no logical connection at all. Non sequitur.
You're attempting to connect a straw man about an unrelated topic to this current discussion. There's actually no logical connection at all. Non sequitur.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Here's some more for you
Non sequitur - RationalWiki
If I had said "Emma was raped, and we know it because you think everyone needs to live with a black family to better understand Trayvon's plight" that would be a non-sequitur, you fucking retard.
Non sequitur - RationalWiki
My sentence wasn't a conclusion, and there was no premise stated. There was no argument being made. It was a statement of fact, you fucking retard.
If I had said "Emma was raped, and we know it because you think everyone needs to live with a black family to better understand Trayvon's plight" that would be a non-sequitur, you fucking retard.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
This is a dictionary definition, not a syllogistic format for a fallacy of logic in an argument, you fucking retard.
You can't even tell the difference between a fucking dictionary definition, and fucking syllogistic reasoning.
This is how fucking stupid you are.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Oh, Jesus Christ, what have I done.
Now Jhodi's going to spend the next 5-7 days forcing me to admit something about non sequitur, isn't he? He's going to completely abandon the actual topic at hand in order to focus exclusively on a pointless and non-productive derail, isn't he?
Oh, Lord Jesus forgive me.
Now Jhodi's going to spend the next 5-7 days forcing me to admit something about non sequitur, isn't he? He's going to completely abandon the actual topic at hand in order to focus exclusively on a pointless and non-productive derail, isn't he?
Oh, Lord Jesus forgive me.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
There's also plenty of evidence I have an invisible, intangible, all knowing, self sustaining, necessarily existing purple yeti in my right front pocket right now, by your standards for evidence.
By realities' standards of evidence, there isn't a shred of evidence for either.
- Status