The November Stundie Cornucopia

matt.tansy said:
Better on the internet than on the street corner yelling at people.

Actually, I wonder if the nuthouse population has declined since the advent of the internet?
Click to expand...

see, I think it might be better knowing exactly where they are all the time. "okay, Crazy jesus guy will be at the park since it's 9:30, and Doomsday Prophet will be at the corner of Lake and Main.... let's cut across broad street and skip both of them"

Now, they come under the guise of friendly neighborhood forum posters (and their avatars don't even have strange buttons or tin foil hats to tell them apart from the rest!)
 
Rape can't happen in hotel rooms:
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/11/...-a-book-with-such-a-mean-title/#comment-88854

Yes, well, any time you have sex with a woman she can accuse you of rape. All she has to do is say the word.

This is why I only have sex in hotels. There is only one reason why a woman would enter a hotel room with a man–because she wants to have sex. Therefore, consent is implied when she enters the room. Yeah, she can make the accusation, but it won’t hold up in court. She came on to me. I took her to a hotel. No jury would find that a crime.
Click to expand...
 
He is vastly overestimating the women hating tendencies of juries.
 
I haven't submitted a stundie in awhile but when I saw the title of this thread I knew I was on to something.

The thread "So-Called Skeptics" offers a few but I will pick my favorites

The author is upset that skeptics don't believe in,

UFO’s, crypto-zoology, psychic powers, ghosts, reincarnation, an afterlife, holistic/natural medicine, and of course, conspiracies, including, but not limited to: chemtrails, Morgellon’s, secret societies and plots by corporations, religious groups and government agencies to control information, population and finances in self-serving and destructive manners... snip...

He claims his incredulity is because he only believes in things that have evidence-but of course he gives no conclusive evidence to disprove these things. He simply cites a lack of conclusive evidence that such things exist, and that, in his mind, is the same as proving their non-existence.
Click to expand...

Why, and better yet how, do I provide evidence for something not existing when there is no evidence that it exists?
 
Simple, we assume everything exists!

Purple goblins made out of doughnuts? Totally exists!

Sentient farts with mind reading abilities? Also totally exists!
 
John Mekki said:
Good.
So we do not know yet if Assange is "guilty or not”.
Maybe he is.
Maybe he is not.
This means, that there can not be any definite evidence that Assange has raped two women if we do not know if he is guilty or not.
Click to expand...

There can't be evidence if we don't know if someone is guilty.

I don't know how we determine guilt without evidence first myself.
 
Rich_C said:
There can't be evidence if we don't know if someone is guilty.

I don't know how we determine guilt without evidence first myself.
Click to expand...


Ehh... I think what he's saying is that, since Assange has been neither found guilty nor acquitted of rape by a court of law, we can't say there's definite evidence for one conclusion over the other.

It's a somewhat long-winded way of saying, "We don't know enough about the situation."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom