Dev01 Where you been cunty?

Got just cunted to the gills on grog last night

This is a post that caught my eye. leo's taunts are almost always aimed at the United States and the American people. Apparently he chooses not to see the impact of the Anglo Saxon when they left Europe. This is leo's post;

This is how white Americans treated Native Americans until quite recently.

They're sick. They exterminated them and, up until recently, kept behaving to them as if they were hyenas.


● Unfortunately, I do not have access to the link he provided to support his assertion.

Oh, this copy and paste is a dilly!

"I've never had bad sex.
Every time I have sex, both my partner and myself enjoy it.
I do make sure this happens.
It's a pure joy.
I always communicate my feelings,
my intentions, my passion.
I verbalise my needs and ask for her needs.
Most of the time, it's gentle sex
till we both cum. I never leave my
partner unsatisfied.
Her satisfaction doubles mine.
What can I say?
I just love sex and, to this day, I've
been having awesome sex.
My principles are simple:
Openness
Sincerity
Joy and pleasure
Respect
Discreteness"

I've noticed several references to Lipsipsuckit recently. How long are you people going to put her down?
THE QUEEN IS DEAD. LET HER BE.

Cat


You are the Site Karen

dgraff recently posted this in another thread and it's worthy of repeating;

"We don’t make any thing in America anymore well we do make cardboard boxes that the other countries buy to package their products in its so sad."

You're so right about that and it is very sad. I thought I read another post somewhere about Americans not owning much of America any longer. That is true, too, because the Chinese do.

only registered users can see external links


Fucking roo! Need to go drop a few to send a message

JustWill

"Your sarcasm is right on the mark and I agree 100%. How can you be so smart about so many things and so snarky socially. For whatever it's worth, nice going."

That post was supposed to be an honest compliment from me, CAT. The questioning of your social skills was not originally from me. I just agreed with it and thought it a valid question that I knew would never be answered by you. After all, by your own words, I’m your site stalker. However, the reason for this post is as follows. The site’s ONE-EYED BUSYBODY commented on it:

“Can you even imagine that the site's ALLEY CAT would have the nerve to assert that your social skills are questionable?”

To which the perfectly named member, Phart, commented:

“edit,I found it, duh, I forgot about the copy paste queen.”

JustWill commenting on your social skills doesn’t mean I have “such an issue with MY (your) social skills...”. Truth be told, you are an idiot that I seldom think about when on site. You are just an old enemy that fucked with me and mine in such a way that now, without being in danger of loosing my membership, I will try to do the same in my way. However, I also don’t like people to talk behind my back. I’ve always identified the object of my scorn. I just hate members that talk out the side of their face, but, seldom have the COJONES to be direct. 😈😈

kitty So much hotter than old Saggy Cat - the latter being a site lump who needs a kick in her cat cunt

CAT a/k/a the fatty saggy granny just blacklisted me again. What a loser cunt. I trashed her page and she still answers my blogs.

Wish he was a cockroach

PA-FREDDY is a blind asshole. He complaines about the looks of women members. This poor excuse of a member has been blacklisted 91 times not counting all the members that left the site because of him. You want to see what he looks like? Get your laugh here:

/b8i244x83xfrpic.html
🤪

Bella! dear, I wish I could rebutt your post here, but, we all know you can't stand criticismcriticism and you blacklist those that do. So, I'll copy and paste.

You posted:
If this is not worthy of the "Copy, edit and paste here" thread, nothing is! Although the member's spelling has always been an issue, why edit? It's being copied and pasted as originally written.

You were referring to my blog found here:

/blogs/51873.html

I'm glad to see you found my orthographical errors. That proves you read my blog carefully............... and, as usual, you ignored the message and took off in a tangent.
I feel sorry for you (well, maybe not really). You don't seem to be able to differentiate between an acerbic individual like me and a total troll like Skittles. For instance, I believe you are a fucking, one-eyed, bitch, witch, but, I don't go around hunting for other bitches to insult just because I don't like their looks or posts. Skittles, on the other hand, and you know this well, makes many, many, members feel bad. Several even quit the site.
I see how many members greet Skittles with a "Hey, Cunti." like he was an alright member. Most, if not all, are male members. Goes to show you what the males think of us "pussies", and you being one (I think) makes me think you approve of Skittles.

Your post continued:
Now I ask you, is this assertion not a knee slappin' HOOT!? WOW, and the whinging member apparently cannot see that they are a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. So stereotypical!

The pot is not calling the kettle black. This pussy is calling this member a "DICK", and not in a good way.

BTW, the correct form is:
the whinging member apparently cannot see that SHE IS.........

But, who cares. The point comes across loud and clear. You hated me from day one and that makes you blind to the injustices being done to OTHER members. Stop, for once since you joined SYC, being so self-serving and admit Skittles has to go.

If this is not worthy of the "Copy, edit and paste here" thread, nothing is! Although the member's spelling has always been an issue, why edit? It's being copied and pasted as originally written.


"WHY DO WE SUFFER THIS IDIOT AND THOSE LIKE HIM?
I'm talking about Sir-Skittles and those like him. Just look at a sample of his posts on other members pics.

/comment_log.php?w=548890

And that's not all. He's continually making derogatory blogs about many members. Yes, he does make derogatory blogs about me and offensive posts. That's one of the reasons for this blog. Now, you might say, why not blacklist him. Believe me, I have. Weather he's on my blacklist or not, he still defames me on site. He does the same to many other members too. I say, "Why do we have to suffer this? Especially those of us who are premium members.” We should be able to refer him to the Deletion Panel for deletion. The cause? Making the site an unfriendly place to belong in. ADMIN, if you read this, how about some help?"

Now I ask you, is this assertion not a knee slappin' HOOT!? WOW, and the whinging member apparently cannot see that they are a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. So stereotypical!

The Saggy Granny knew her dead old papa was a coward and deserter. Here is a brief excerpt from his DD1569 document of military records:

1936- Date of Induction- Fort Banning Georgia- MEDICAL evaluation: Grade D OVERWEIGHT, LOW IQ, POOR HYGIENE

A. Basic Infantry Skills Course- Grade D

B. Rifle Range Proficiency- 46% at 100 yards

C. Overall basic training proficiency- UNSAT

MOS Designation: COOK MS-92G

Rank: PRIVATE

Recommendation for forward deployment in theater- NOT QUALIFIED

During his illustrious career in the military, Father of Saggy Grammy (FoSG) has numerous infractions, arrests, and time spent in the stockade on three different bases.


As you can see, a real lump, troublemaker, and horrible soldier. The only thing he jumped from in the military was off the barstool.

DD-217 document review: DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE 23 NOVEMBER, 1941

As you can see, not only did this rat have a unimpressive stint in the military, he was dishonorably discharged before the US even entered World War Two. Irrespective of name of service, he was a complete failure. More importantly, the only reason he joined the military was the judge gave him a choice: jail or the military.

cat

smell this

Fallacy (Logical error)

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts".

It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.
(In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.)

Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals that attempts to resolve their disagreements. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, so violations of these rules are fallacies.

Formal fallacy:
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic. Such an argument is always considered to be wrong. The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument; but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described.

Ecological fallacy:
An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."

Informal fallacy:
In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument. A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid, but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.

Faulty generalization:
A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of faulty generalizations, also known as inductive fallacies. Here the most important issue concerns inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). In the absence of sufficient evidence, drawing conclusions based on induction is unwarranted and fallacious. With the backing of empirical evidence, however, the conclusions may become warranted and convincing (at which point the arguments are no longer considered fallacious).

Hasty generalization:
Described as making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards", "grad students are nerdy", "women don't enjoy sports", etc.) are common examples of the principle.
Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as:
X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.

Relevance fallacy:
The fallacies of relevance are a broad class of informal fallacies, generically represented by missing the point: presenting an argument, which may be sound, but fails to address the issue in question.

Argument from silence:
An argument from silence is a faulty conclusion that is made based on the absence of evidence rather than on the presence of evidence.

Post hoc (false cause):
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if one registers for a class, and their name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation does not necessarily entail causation. For example, if I ate a sandwich and then I got food poisoning, that does not necessarily mean the sandwich gave me food poisoning. It is possible that I could have eaten something else earlier that caused the food poisoning.

Slippery slope:
Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but in fact there is not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope", we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; they assume we cannot stop halfway down the hill.

False analogy:
This error in reasoning occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons, Hence the false analogy's informal nickname: the "apples and oranges" fallacy.

Straw man fallacy:
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Measurement fallacy:
Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement. Where mathematical fallacies are subtle mistakes in reasoning leading to invalid mathematical proofs, measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps involved in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement-based value claim. The ancient Greek Sophist Protagoras was one of the first thinkers to propose that humans can generate reliable measurements through his "human-measure" principle and the practice of dissoi logoi (arguing multiple sides of an issue).

Knowledge value measurement fallacy:
The increasing availability and circulation of big data are driving a proliferation of new metrics for scholarly authority, and there is lively discussion regarding the relative usefulness of such metrics for measuring the value of knowledge production in the context of an "information tsunami".
For example, anchoring fallacies can occur when unwarranted weight is given to data generated by metrics that the arguers themselves acknowledge is flawed.
A naturalistic fallacy can occur for example in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better" or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better".
A false analogy occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons between data points.
Ecological fallacies can be committed when one measures scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g. "Hispanic" faculty).

Intentional fallacy:
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
Examples of this include the speaker or writer:
1. Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
2. Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
3. Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called
"begging the question" (petitio principii)
4. Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
5. Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
6. Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning)
7. Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified,
also called false dichotomy
8. Selectively using facts (card stacking)
9. Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
10. Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)

In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson and Scott Adams employed fallacious reasoning in many of their cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.

When someone uses logical fallacies intentionally to mislead in academic, political, or other high-stakes contexts, the breach of trust calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.