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

Cad: "Whats funny is, just like in Zimmerman, Tanoomba is once again assuming the story advanced by the race-baiting (in this case, rape-baiting) media is truth, the "victim" deserves complete deference, and we're all being "assholes" for not blindly agreeing that some guys life needs to be dismantled over an unfounded accusation.

Now one thing Tanoomba says is true: We do not know for certain that he didn't do exactly as she says. There is a chance, however small, that she is telling the 100% unvarnished truth and this guy is a sexual predator. However, in the absence of evidence, we must assume innocence (Just like we did with Zimmerman.) The absence of evidence is NOT proof of innocence. However, is also isn't proof of guilt.

All we can do is say, based on the facts, what the situation looks like to us; because thats all this is at this point, a war of public opinion. This guy will never be prosecuted. He will never successfully sue Emma unless she does something more stupid than she's already done. So this is just the media pissing on itself back and forth. We can each have our opinions but there's not going to be any resolution, whatever is going to happen in this case has already happened."




I don't know how you can be so verbose and still miss the point by such a wide mark.

I never said Nangussen's life needs to be dismantled. I've already acknowledged the possibility that he is innocent, and I've already stated that there is no proof nor is any forthcoming that will find him guilty of rape. I don't know why you keep pretending I'm saying otherwise, but it's extremely dishonest and more than a little irritating. Again, I'm the only person here who's not dismissing possibilities and claiming to have the one right answer.

Still, that's only half as irritating as your complete and utter hypocrisy on your next point. So we must assume innocence in the absence of evidence, right? So WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING SULKOWICZ IS GUILTY OF MAKING FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS? That's a serious crime you're accusing her of there, champ. There is no way to legally prove she is lying (if there were, as YOU have established, she would be sued for all she was worth), so why aren't you assuming she's innocent?

"Innocent until proven guilty, unless it conflicts with my world view." -Cad

Cad: "Nowhere did I say she should be prosecuted or have anything done to her regarding her accusations, merely that I think they are false. So, way to set that strawman on fire, champ."

You claim Sulcowicz is guilty of making false rape accusations even though this has not been proven. You've also repeatedly stated that we MUST consider Nangussen innocent in the absence of incriminating evidence. NOW you're attempting to say "Well, it's just my OPINION that she's guilty, and I don't think she should be charged anyway, so there" well after I've stated that Nangussen can not and should not be found guilty of rape. In the end, you're admitting your complete certainty is based on "feels" after all (and not on proof which, if it existed, would have Sulkowicz sued). You are a colossal hypocrite.

Quaid: "Tanoomba chooses to create/perpetuate a label made up of three value judgements that are meant to demean without context."

OK, here's some context:

Angry: Have you seen the anger directed at Sarkeesian? At Quinn? At Dunham? At the Cosby accusers? At Sulkowicz? At Wu? At Chu (Gesundheit)? At McIntosh? (I could go on.) Well, I have. Angry is a pretty apt description. Morally outraged is another. Busybodies yet another. But I digress...

Irrational: Have you seen how easily lies have been ignored when they come from someone on the same "side", like ThunderF00t? Have you seen how "innocent in the absence of evidence" only applies when it's somebody they WANT to believe is innocent? Have you seen indisputable evidence blatantly ignored because it conflicts with their world view? Have you seen every logical fallacy in the book exploited in misguided attempts to score points? I have. Irrational is not a misnomer.

Asshole: This is my favorite, since this is the one AIAs actually seem to take pride in. After all, being an asshole is not only a right, it is a DUTY. Sometimes the only way to teach people the error of their ways is to try to publicly shame them, right? And no one's in a better position to decide who "deserves" to be shamed than angry irrational people, right? Right?

Take your Moral grandstanding elsewhere, Quaid. You're a great poster, but the "I can't believe you said THAT!" shtick is unnecessary. I've got enough people bending over backwards trying to "gotcha" me over pointless bullshit. I much prefer when you actually provide a valid counter-point to the things I say, which you're not terrible at.

Cad: "Uhh what the fuck are you talking about dude, nowhere did I say any such thing. I said I think she's lying and just being a vindictive female, but nowhere did I say she's "guilty" of anything other than being a lying vindictive female. If her statements were provably false she'd be open to a defamation suit, but they aren't."

Dude, really? If she's lying about being raped, then she's making false rape accusations. That's what "false rape accusations" means, isn't it? Am I on crazy pills here?

Cad: "You're just stupid, as usual, because there's a difference between I personally don't believe her and being able to prove it. I think the evidence indicates what I say it indicates, but not in a strong enough way to make her statements provably false. For defamation or filing a false report you need to be able to prove the statement false.

I know you're just trolling though because nobody is as stupid as you. So, congrats, you got me to reply again. Faggot."

So if the evidence isn't strong enough to make her statements provably false, then what you're saying is "my FEELS tell me she's lying", right? I mean, that's the two options, right? Either the evidence makes a clear case (as it did with Zimmerman) or you're using feels to come to your own conclusion. If there's a third option, please fill me in because otherwise you're just taking a lot of weirdly contradictory stances here.

"Feels" it is, then. That's pretty much the only interpretation of "I personally don't believe her but I can't prove it" I can reasonably make here, especially since you declined to provide an alternate explanation.

I'm still glad you've made the effort to read my posts and reply to me. Thank you, Cad. You're not a bad person, far as I can tell.

Doc: "lol you aren't even trying anymore."

Don't be so hard on him, he was totally trying.



Fana: "listen up buttercup, this is literally your position, nobody can metaphysically prove it either way."

I see someone's been playing with the Deepak random quote generator.



Alkorin: "Jesus, have you never heard of "reasonable doubt"? Are you really this thick?"

I sure have! As in "It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sulkowicz has made false rape allegations, therefore those who are convinced she did are basing that decision on their feels."



Lith: "Bill Nye has thankfully made a video that works for every single one of Tan's posts. I suggest everyone responds with just this video from now on."

That's pretty lazy, even for you. Do you think you can do a better job explaining why the "evidence of consent" you believe exists has no legal value? Cad gave it a shot and it came down to "There is no real proof, but my feels are really telling me she's a lying bitch." If you can do better, knock yourself out. Or, you know, take the Doc Mario route and sprinkle hollow, content-free snark around to boost your own ego. That's productive too.