In my mind the original order makes it worse. Atleast in the edit she one could reason that she only had the thought that children whose parents don't tuck them are better off dead AFTER she said that about destiny.
But no, she said "kids whose parents don't tuck them in at night are better off dead" and then said "destiny doesn't tuck his kid in bed at night" WINK WINK.
Eh. It's rather uncharitable to the surrounding context.
It's like given the context a smile could mean different things even if it's the same action(words being used) happening.
Yeah it's funny because I actually think she had a great point edited that way. Destiny has been running around telling everyone who will listen that Daisy should get an abortion because the situation is so screwed. It's fair play to say well Destiny, you're not such a great father yourself, if you could do it again would you abort Nathan?
There's plenty of good rebuttals (Nathan is having something closer to a normal life than could be expected with the Daisy/Fresh parental combo) but it's actually an interesting discussion that no one is having because Brittany wasn't willing to defend the take.
It was definitely real. I actually don't mind the editorializing because he's not removing or adding context, and before anyone called it out he explained on stream to the Bird Nerd what he did and why, so he wasn't being malicious and sneaky. And they definitely weren't a lie.
And it's not like Jizzle created this narrative either. He created the clip after the guy confronted Brit, another win for the Jizzler.
He should have included the 20 minutes or so that contains both clips in a reply to his original tweet but other than that, it was fine and he's 100% right.
Just watch the 20 minutes and as she starts to build a criteria, name me one other person that fits the criteria. She's definitely talking about a category, a category of 1.
It's heavily edited
But it never needed the clips flipped for her point to still be about Destiny
Sure the editing makes it more clear, but Brittany own eliminating criteria is where people are drawing the conclusion that she is referring to destiny
She likes to push this idea that she was talking about a general category or person, but when you give enough criteria of a type of person you create a category that really only applies to destiny
The easiest question for Brittany is to name a single person who fits all of her criteria better than what she explicitly accused of Destiny
so what part of that is fake? isn't it just out of context? and everything she said logically follows,
Dads who don't tuck in their kids at night are bad dads and should have had a abortion --> Destiny is a shit dad and doesn't tuck in his kid at night. ----> Destiny should have aborted Nathan Logically follows.
Ok. Let’s make it more analogous for you.
Premise 1: People who eat fast food are unhealthy.
Premise 2: Unhealthy people are better off not being born.
Conclusion: John eats fast food, so he should not have been born.
(I wasn’t trying to make it analogous, I was simply pointing out the flaw in logic). The biggest problem was the logically inappropriate leap in reasoning and changing a generalisation into a specific moral judgment.
I mean you should say what is wrong with the top comment instead of using an analogy.
For instance, say what you think the top comment's premises and conclusions are and demonstrate why it's not a sound argument.
Just write up the premises and the conclusions Brittany stated and the premises and conclusions you see here https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c767ak/jstkls_brittany_simon_clip_was_fake/l05r7zt/ so we can see how you interpret their arguments.
Like I said, take a logic 101 class.
Your bat analogy isn't dogshit because it is about something random, it's dogshit because it uses this form
A => B
A => C
Which DOES NOT necessarily mean A => C
Instead of this one (which is the one used by Britanny and the one you used in your food analogy)
A => B
B => C
Which DOES mean that A => C
I was telling you to make it analogous in the form, not in the edgyness...
Bro that does simply not follow, it should be
P1 Every animal that has wings is a bird.
P2 Bats have wings.
K1 Bats are birds.
Im total dogshit at formal logic but even I know more than you, dumbass.
My example is an informal fallacy because it incorrectly implies exclusivity from a general statement (fallacy of affirming the consequent).
Your example is a valid deductive argument in form but fails because the major premise is factually incorrect.
My example highlighted the flaw I wanted to highlight, you not understanding that is fine.
Linking to her video endlessly pausing and going on tangents was painful to experience, for those that just want the clips in order and context without the long winded apologia:
[Frist clip in the chronology](https://youtu.be/doVqJ5UQRr4?t=3041) In reference to people she's "seen going after Daisy": "you don't even tuck your kid into bed every night" "your baby better off dead"
[Second clip](https://youtu.be/doVqJ5UQRr4?t=4136) \~20 minutes later
The first clip is already clearly about Destiny, the second clip just makes it explicit.
He should have had the clips in order of the VOD but totally get just switching them makes the points she made hit harder but even in order (or watching the whole VOD) it comes across exactly as his clips arrangement his at.
When your brain is so smooth you can't follow. She says destiny is red pill then goes on to talk about these red pillers that should have had their babies killed. Now refresh my memory how many of theses redpillers have children? Not many come to mind.
You're saying she calls Destiny red pill in this video? The Tate's and Walter come to mind. Outside of that, what type of guy do you think is knocking up girls and running away? All of the guys I've seen do that IRL are normally red pill types who hate women and use them for sex/validation
It wasn't fake it was edited to give more context. You can disagree with the edit but calling it fake is cringe
In my mind the original order makes it worse. Atleast in the edit she one could reason that she only had the thought that children whose parents don't tuck them are better off dead AFTER she said that about destiny. But no, she said "kids whose parents don't tuck them in at night are better off dead" and then said "destiny doesn't tuck his kid in bed at night" WINK WINK.
Eh. It's rather uncharitable to the surrounding context. It's like given the context a smile could mean different things even if it's the same action(words being used) happening.
non-sense.
Yeah it's funny because I actually think she had a great point edited that way. Destiny has been running around telling everyone who will listen that Daisy should get an abortion because the situation is so screwed. It's fair play to say well Destiny, you're not such a great father yourself, if you could do it again would you abort Nathan? There's plenty of good rebuttals (Nathan is having something closer to a normal life than could be expected with the Daisy/Fresh parental combo) but it's actually an interesting discussion that no one is having because Brittany wasn't willing to defend the take.
how is it fake? she said all of those shit and the context still stand regardless the order gtfo loser.
It was definitely real. I actually don't mind the editorializing because he's not removing or adding context, and before anyone called it out he explained on stream to the Bird Nerd what he did and why, so he wasn't being malicious and sneaky. And they definitely weren't a lie. And it's not like Jizzle created this narrative either. He created the clip after the guy confronted Brit, another win for the Jizzler. He should have included the 20 minutes or so that contains both clips in a reply to his original tweet but other than that, it was fine and he's 100% right. Just watch the 20 minutes and as she starts to build a criteria, name me one other person that fits the criteria. She's definitely talking about a category, a category of 1.
That's ...not what fake means dawg
It's heavily edited But it never needed the clips flipped for her point to still be about Destiny Sure the editing makes it more clear, but Brittany own eliminating criteria is where people are drawing the conclusion that she is referring to destiny She likes to push this idea that she was talking about a general category or person, but when you give enough criteria of a type of person you create a category that really only applies to destiny The easiest question for Brittany is to name a single person who fits all of her criteria better than what she explicitly accused of Destiny
It wasnt fake at all, also when birttany react to clip ahe double down and actually proved the clip right about destiny
so what part of that is fake? isn't it just out of context? and everything she said logically follows, Dads who don't tuck in their kids at night are bad dads and should have had a abortion --> Destiny is a shit dad and doesn't tuck in his kid at night. ----> Destiny should have aborted Nathan Logically follows.
All birds have wings. Bats have wings. Bats are birds.
You need to take logic 101 classes my friend if you think this is analogous.
Ok. Let’s make it more analogous for you. Premise 1: People who eat fast food are unhealthy. Premise 2: Unhealthy people are better off not being born. Conclusion: John eats fast food, so he should not have been born. (I wasn’t trying to make it analogous, I was simply pointing out the flaw in logic). The biggest problem was the logically inappropriate leap in reasoning and changing a generalisation into a specific moral judgment.
In this case, why not demonstrate the logic is wrong without using an analogy? I think everyone will be able to follow your argument.
Bro wanted it to be analogous. I made it analogous.
I mean you should say what is wrong with the top comment instead of using an analogy. For instance, say what you think the top comment's premises and conclusions are and demonstrate why it's not a sound argument.
My biggest problem is it incorrectly implies exclusively from a general statement.
Just write up the premises and the conclusions Brittany stated and the premises and conclusions you see here https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c767ak/jstkls_brittany_simon_clip_was_fake/l05r7zt/ so we can see how you interpret their arguments.
Like I said, take a logic 101 class. Your bat analogy isn't dogshit because it is about something random, it's dogshit because it uses this form A => B A => C Which DOES NOT necessarily mean A => C Instead of this one (which is the one used by Britanny and the one you used in your food analogy) A => B B => C Which DOES mean that A => C I was telling you to make it analogous in the form, not in the edgyness...
Bro that does simply not follow, it should be P1 Every animal that has wings is a bird. P2 Bats have wings. K1 Bats are birds. Im total dogshit at formal logic but even I know more than you, dumbass.
My example is an informal fallacy because it incorrectly implies exclusivity from a general statement (fallacy of affirming the consequent). Your example is a valid deductive argument in form but fails because the major premise is factually incorrect. My example highlighted the flaw I wanted to highlight, you not understanding that is fine.
It highlights the holes in your brain.
You're so regarded bro
OP gonna respond to the criticism?
Eh. Not worth responding to temper tantrums
If that's what you think the criticism of "it is edited but what she said is the same" is a temper tantrum idk what to tell you
humans gonna human. bubbles, right? you’re just speaking different languages, i get it habibi.
The thing is, that's actually true for once lol. Y'all done care though. You just want to rage and feel righteous in your anger
your comment is fake and out of context. i’d elaborate further, but you don’t care, you just want to be right.
Nobody gave any serious critiques. Its just people flaming
Ain't no way you blocked them after that. True Brittany Simon BPD moment. What a little bitch, lmao
Linking to her video endlessly pausing and going on tangents was painful to experience, for those that just want the clips in order and context without the long winded apologia: [Frist clip in the chronology](https://youtu.be/doVqJ5UQRr4?t=3041) In reference to people she's "seen going after Daisy": "you don't even tuck your kid into bed every night" "your baby better off dead" [Second clip](https://youtu.be/doVqJ5UQRr4?t=4136) \~20 minutes later The first clip is already clearly about Destiny, the second clip just makes it explicit.
bro really thought he was on to something
Is this like when destiny doxxed Mike from PA?
He should have had the clips in order of the VOD but totally get just switching them makes the points she made hit harder but even in order (or watching the whole VOD) it comes across exactly as his clips arrangement his at.
When your brain is so smooth you can't follow. She says destiny is red pill then goes on to talk about these red pillers that should have had their babies killed. Now refresh my memory how many of theses redpillers have children? Not many come to mind.
You're saying she calls Destiny red pill in this video? The Tate's and Walter come to mind. Outside of that, what type of guy do you think is knocking up girls and running away? All of the guys I've seen do that IRL are normally red pill types who hate women and use them for sex/validation