Tall Girls Can Fall in Love Too - Ch. 22

[MangaDex]

 

[dougrayman]

If you like her, that means you've observe her for large periods of time... you haven't noticed that she actually likes him and not you???

 

[kronix]

Lol. She don't like you tho u fucking noob

 

[Yautja]

"Do you treat your friends and students like this"

This manga is clinically retarded. I'd say no person could be this stupid, but in this day and age it's scarcely realistic. Only a moron would see a picture and article on a tabloid and instantly jump to self-righteous assault.

 

[RandomDoge]

@Yautja Most of the Korean manhwas are clinically retarded, I already gave up on trying to see any sense on it and just rush through the stories I think may be interesting.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
"An article says this guy did X, with only a single picture as proof and no other facts. What he did was not a crime. Time to assault him". Grade A Logic.
Well, yea it is, considering he's innocent of what he's accused of. Believability and past accusations have nothing to do with whether or not something is a false or empty allegation. Good job ignoring the assault part. And the stunning irony of assaulting some and then acting like the victim because you called dibs on another human being.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
Yea, fuck no. A normal human reaction isn't to assault people based on dubious claims. Speak for your fucking self. I'm not going to assume shit because some bullshit tabloid or twitter mob of morons seem to believe something. Not everyone is as stupid as you'd like to believe and imply yourself to be.

Yea, he didn't, so you're wrong in claiming it is not an empty claim. #Movingthegoalposts.

That's literally what you did in your first sentence.

Good job continuing to ignore the stunning irony of assaulting someone and then acting like the victim and then attempting to justify assaulting someone as something "normal".

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

That's a normal human reaction!

Well, that seems like a defence of assault, especially when you take into context that the guy assaulted someone over a paparazzi article. So your VERY EXPLICIT disclaiming isn't worth much.

Because I don't care and it's not relevant to assaulting someone over seeing a picture and news story you didn't like being unacceptable. Nor is it related to the hypocrisy thereafter. For someone not defending assault, you sure are defending it a lot by saying "he was an asshole", something that is a pretty typical defence.
"Why did you punch that guy"
"He was an asshole"
"Assault isn't okay"
"Why are you ignoring the fact that he was an asshole?"

Yea, I am, because it isn't relevant to what I said. His beliefs are not relevant to assault being unacceptable.

Irony, literal, definitional, personification of irony and hypocrisy right there.

You're going to have to do better than this if you want me to buy your bullshit.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
No, it doesn't. Example.
"I'm not racist"
"I hate the blacks"

"I'm not defending assault"
"He was an asshole"
See. Disclaimers don't mean anything when you immediately contradict them.

Simply lying and pretending I'm bringing up stuff you never said or did isn't going to fly. You literally are defending this instance of assault by saying it's normal reaction, that he was an asshole, etc. Playing the victim or pretending like I'm insane won't fly either. There are subreddits for people like you. Not sure which one would apply here though. You have the same kind of attitude as a choosing beggar.

I didn't expect anything. I simply used my eyes. And common sense. Something you seem to be lacking.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

You really don't know what's going on, and are really bad at gaslighting.

Yea, they aren't, and defending something not relevant is what's called a red herring. A grade school logical fallacy that you seem to be following quite aptly.

The difference is that I am ONLY defending his beliefs!

Me: "An article says this guy did X, with only a single picture as proof and no other facts. What he did was not a crime. Time to assault him". Grade A Logic.
You: That's a normal human reaction! If you think someone has the personality to do something BASED ON PAST EVENTS, then that makes sense. Can you not think of a person that you don't trust because of a past incident?

Not buying it.

To support your point, you have to prove that his beliefs are somehow INEXTRICABLY tied to his assault. You have to prove that EVERYONE who thinks someone else is a bad person WILL, WITHOUT A DOUBT, COMMIT ASSAULT. That is your burden

You're extremely stupid. My literal point is assault is not acceptable regardless of personal beliefs and or unverified gossip. That seeing a stupid article and a picture don't function as an excuse for assault. So no, I don't have to prove "that".

Have you ever thought of someone as a bad person? Have you NECESSARILY AND NO MATTER WHAT committed assault on that person AS A RESULT OF YOUR BELIEF? You're apparently thinking that I'm a bad person, based upon your completely unfounded insults, apparently. Have you committed assault against me?

No, I haven't committed assault, because I'm not a fucking idiot and I can control my emotions. I 100% think you're a moron, and that you're probably a troll.

You seem to be lacking in understanding of EVERYTHING. Don't act like you're using common sense when you're not even using your brain.

Petulance thy name is givermersspls. You can keep trying the "no u" argument. It's not going to work.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
Well if you say "I hate the blacks", for example, in your second comment, and then say "I'm not racist" in your 5th comment, I'm not going to believe you and am going to continue to reference it. Staying on topic, grounded to reality, admitting what one has said or believed is kind of relevant. I think you're schizophrenic.

Conversations aren't allowed to develop dynamically and shift to related but slightly different subjects. You have to stay on the EXACT same subject ALL THE TIME. That's what you're saying

Hi Kathy Newman, anyways, fallacy.

You're the fucking troll that doesn't understand that I was talking about a SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT issue. It's not like I made a completely different topic. It's not like you were talking about the manhua and then I came in with oh, dogs are nice and furry. I made a comment on a very related but slightly different subject, and I made an explicit disclaimer. Instead, you're like herp derp, you have to talk about the exact same thing.

CAPS DON'T MAKE YOU RIGHT OR SEEM LESS CRAZY. Enjoy moving your goal posts. The fallacy that you're currently defending.

You're the fucking troll that doesn't see an EXPLICIT disclaimer when it's EXPLICIT.

Refer to the following.
"I'm not racist"
"I hate the blacks"

"I'm not defending assault"
"He was an asshole"

You're the one trying to insert crap into my mouth when you're the one making it up.

Refer to gaslighting, lying and the quotes of you inserting said crap in your own mouth.

The problem is that you're backed against a wall now. You have dug your own grave. You misunderstood what I said EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN EXPLICIT DISCLAIMER. Instead of accepting your own responsibility and mistake, you have doubled down, and now you're like oh, this is what you really meant even though I said NONE of it. This is your own fault for being too dumb to read.

That is what we call projection, ladies and gentlemen, and givemerplss. I think you may just be the most delusional person on this website. And schizophrenic.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

Who's the crazy one? You're acting as though the statements are exact parallels.

Ah, ignoring context and pretending the opposition speaks analogies as literal parallels, the favored tool of the fool.

Caps are to emphasize a point. Caps are to show that there is something that I need to make clear because you're not getting it.

NO THEY AREN'T CAPS ARE TO ASSERT DOMINANCE AND PRETEND I AM RIGHT AND TO EMPHASIZE THAT I AM RIGHT AND THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW RIGHT I AM. I hope I don't have to spell out the sarcasm for you. Or how you ignored, yet again, (do you have Alzheimers?) the fallacy that your are currently utilizing.

If I said oh, the victim of the mugging probably shouldn't have been walking down a known dangerous alley with his wallet full of cash hanging out and a bunch of jewelry glittering in the light, then does that mean I'm somehow defending mugging? No. You are messed up if you think that I am defending mugging in that kind of case.

Who's the crazy one? You're acting as though the statements are exact parallels.

I don't usually use emojis but . Now that is some grade A doublethink irony. I could explain how an unprovoked mugging is different than assaulting someone for doing something you don't like or feel is wrong and how that isn't the same as intentionally putting yourself in harm's way, but whatever.

The difference with the blacks and racist example is that hating blacks is a textbook example of being racist. Saying that Zhang Long did something bad DOES NOT justify the assault against him.

I'm getting deja vu.

But you're still going to somehow make up some crap to say that I supported that even though I never did.

Ah, the oh so lovely projection.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

Who's the one who has failed to provide explanations?

My example of the mugging is much closer to the current situation of Zhang Long and Dong Le than your example of racism. It also makes conceivable sense. The fact of the matter is that that's how people actually speak. That's how people actually think. But you're the one ignoring that.

I really don't understand how someone can either be so oblivious and off topic or assume other people would be so stupid as to not notice. Like how my analogy was about hypocrisy / inconsistency, not the situation in the manga. Like how your analogy fails because of the thing you literally quote in the next sentence, and then you acknowledge how different the two are.

No duh they're different! Of course they're not the same! The problem for you is that they're similar enough in all aspects relevant to this discussion.

Something something, failed to provide explanations. Something something, more lying and gaslighting. Something something, delusional gaslighting. Something something schizophrenic.

Here's a different example. Let's say that I trick you into believing that if you buy pubic hair, then you'll reach puberty. Then, when you realize that you've been tricked, you have my parents killed and then ground up into chili and fed to me. If someone says it was bad for me to trick you into believing the pubic hair thing, what would you say? Would you say oh, then that person is supporting having parents murdered and ground up into chili? That is exactly what your position justifies.

I'd say that person is an idiot, just as I am saying to you.

Refer back to my very, very first point. I said that believing the tabloid is not unreasonable for Dong Le. I said that it's not an empty accusation for Dong Le to believe in that tabloid based upon his prior knowledge of Zhang Long. Then, when you had your first misunderstanding, I explicitly said I do not support assault. You're somehow acting like that means I'm necessarily supporting assault. That's dumb as hell.

You don't know what an empty accusation is. Here, I'll define them.

emp·ty adjective
containing nothing; not filled or occupied

ac·cu·sa·tion noun
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

empty accusation noun
a charge or claim without volume or value that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

Google even shows a little poem that defines it well:
Empty Accusations
Empty accusations hold no purpose,
Other than destroy the one in question.
Then mendacious actions are to become,
Deadlier than ever.

So considering that article had no volume or value, no proof, and had no other purpose that to hurt the company / victim, yea, it is an empty accusation. And his personal perspective doesn't change that truth. A flat earthers perspective on the state of the earth is no more valid than this idiot's perspective on said empty accusations.

And the quote of you and your subsequent comments imply otherwise.

I don't know what drugs you aren't taking that you should be taking, or which drugs you are taking that shouldn't be taking, but I bet they're good shit, because good lord are you fucking crazy. I get the feeling I've said this to you before, but I don't have the necessary degrees, licenses or training to deal with people like you, and I don't wanna run the risk of a hate crime.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

Something something, you're wrong, something something. Dumb as shit is what you are.

At least you're original. Oh wait...

On the empty accusation part, are you stupid as fuck? Do you not know what a post hoc fallacy is? You're saying the tabloid had no volume or value based on your own position as a third-party reader. You're not a character. You didn't see that there was a damned photo of Zhang Long carrying Gao Ran to his car and taking her to his house, all of which he did. You don't know whatever it is that Dong Le knows about how Zhang Long was an asshole in the past. You're applying your own unrealistic expectations upon the characters of the story.

Guess you can't read. Oh yea, speaking of fallacies, something which you should not be lecturing anyone about, red herring. Also not a post hoc. Google is your friend. Well, not your friend.

You tried comparing this to flat earthers? That's dumb as hell. His personal knowledge of the FACTS of what Zhong Lang did are not the same as a flat earther's unfounded beliefs of the state of the universe. If you can't see how they're different, you're dumb as hell.

Ah, the all caps FACTS. I think it's very clear what kind of person you are. Anyways, missing the point.

At the end of the day, we can summarize very clearly what happened. I said Dong Le has reason to believe the tabloids and that I do not support assault. You said that means I support assaulting Zhang Long.

As long as the we doesn't include you, yes "we" can. And no, that's not what I or you said.

That is the absolute bare minimum of what this conversation is. If you cannot see why you are wrong, you are messed up.

To bring things back around to the beginning, hypocrisy, irony, thy name is givemersspls.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
Whatever you say pumpkin, reality bends to your will. That's totally what a red herring is, and why they don't apply.

Post Hoc:
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

So no, not a post hoc. As the current accusations of wrong doing being empty do not rely on any events. And if you're referring to the assault, the media coverage did cause the assault in a domino effect.

You don't specify how I'm missing the point. Assertion without justification or reason. Good.

Already did it multiple times pumpkin, you keep missing it.

How is that not what I or you said? Explain.

Refer to the sentence above.

To bring things back to the middle, you have been backed into a corner and have to justify yourself by making up and inserting words.

To quote myself: "Projection."

Someone needs to find your handler.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls
Very original.

Yes sweetie, that's totally what red herring are. To spell things out for you, a red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. From wiki.

Irony.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is an informal fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.
Post hoc is a Latin phrase, meaning "after this" or "after the event".
Empty is literally all it can be, because as we've learned, nothing happened beyond that picture. And good job proving yourself wrong.
An actual post hoc fallacy, albeit a true one, would be saying the media coverage caused the assault.

Again, irony. Projection. You're just looking for an argument.

Good luck.

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

And it can't possibly be a red herring because I explicitly had explained my point numerous times. And yet you assert that it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Do you not know what a post hoc fallacy is? ... I didn't say post hoc ergo propter hoc.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/

Again, you don't understand what an explicit disclaimer is. You keep acting like the thing that I disclaimed is still being supported when I clearly never supported it to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

You're calling it a contradiction when it's not. Again, the support of Dong Le's belief in the tabloid is in no way intrinsically connected to the support for the assault. I gave the example of grinding parents into chili previously. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

You keep whining about projection but don't even understand how your own writing is horrible. You're projecting about [me] projecting.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Projection
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=no u
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-d...ng-for-the-best-argument-and-counter-argument
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/g26588504/best-self-help-books/

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

Linking articles with no explanation is the epitome of laziness and stupidity on the Internet. In case you want to call me out on this, that's a hyperbole. You haven't applied the linked arguments to this specific case. You're failing to do anything except prove your own laziness and stupidity.

https://au.reachout.com/articles/8-ways-to-deal-with-anger
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/dealing-with-angry-people.htm

Legitimate question. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to make sure. When you saw my comment, was your first instinct that I was somehow trying to justify running over a dude with a car and sending him to the hospital? Was that seriously what you thought?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/please-stop-using-the-condescending-question-mark.14177/
https://www.quora.com/Do-certain-people-enjoy-being-mean-cruel-and-rude-to-other-people-If-yes-why
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-being-condescending-considered-bad

 

[Yautja]

@givemersspls

I've made my case. You're being lazy and can't read.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://pairedlife.com/problems/How-to-Gracefully-Back-Down-from-an-Argument