Jerry Peet / Lily Orchard / Lily Peet / Valkyrstudios / Bhaalspawn / Tara Callie / "Mod Ebara" - Sociopath writer of pedophile fanfiction and cartoon reviews, faked getting raped to force a divorce, then mobbed and gaslit their ex off Tumblr, satanist neoliberal of the MovieSlob variety, also wants to fuck dogs and/or pokemon

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Their entire shtick regarding the Lily Peet and Joshscorcher argument boils simply to this image:

AeBqdye.jpg
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: KingJ, Kamenshin, The Janitor and 1 other person
Last edited:
Derped223 said:
View attachment 446569
http://archive.is/OpVGg
Click to expand...
“horde of serial abusers”

Where are their victims at then, yo? I’m pretty sure Jerry has a higher bodycount of victims to his abuse than Brittany and Segasister combined, and this isn’t even conjecture or bias speaking. Jerry admits to mistreating his own viewers by yelling at them for leaving comments and mocking and deriding them (leading to them unsubscribing, which is what he calls “filtering his audience”) for commenting on other videos.

Jerry has no right to deride or complain about a lot of things, given that he does those things as well; perverts/sexual deviancy, pedophilia, some form of media being for children... Add abuse to that list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ, X-Shaped Weeaboo and Armored Hero Fanfic
Derped223 said:
View attachment 446569
http://archive.is/OpVGg

View attachment 446573
http://archive.is/Y9gRy
Click to expand...

If the church wants to pick and choose who gets married, they can pay taxes. Until then, they can suck it up.
Click to expand...

Jerry, you can't be this retarded! The entire idea of the Church not being taxed is that the government, the people, and the church itself don't want to be at all connected that way. Because once church start paying taxes, the government now has total reigns to do with the church, because they would then need to set up regulations like they do with any taxed institute. And having the most influential and biggest church of the world regulated and control in any way with the same government that have shown time and time again that it will further its own agenda if they can, is never a good idea. Even if you're a hardcore atheist and absolutely hate the church, there's a reason why church and state should never come together, and taxation is one big door to it. And does Jerry not remember that the Church is a non-profit private institute, it policies that their entire foundation is build on is their to put up. And even then, they are some churches that do gay weddings if you really want it, but their still the secular way of getting married that doesn't involve a private institute being forced to change the policy they build themselves on. Let me fix that quote for you Jerry.

If the Church, a private institute, pick and choose who get to marry and are not infringing on anybody's right to marry legally, then they have every right to do so as they please.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: scathefire and The Silver Shroud
"Churches should officiate whatever ceremony I want!"
That's what courthouses are for. Or other churches.
Peet's like the sort of retard that walks into a Taco Bell and calls 911 because they won't sell him a pizza.

As for his "horde of abusers" shit, gods; this asshole is one of the most toxic people ever to come close to the fandom since cuteosphere/dragondicks, and they had the good graces to fuck off and go back to being a generic pedo furry. I cannot think of anyone currently active in the fandom as noxious as Peet; he's been like this for over half a decade and preying on kids and special individuals for his narcissistic needs, turning them into violent, blind sycophants.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: KingJ, scathefire, Armored Hero Fanfic and 1 other person
FrownsAllAround said:
"Churches should officiate whatever ceremony I want!"
That's what courthouses are for. Or other churches.
Peet's like the sort of exceptional individual that walks into a Taco Bell and calls 911 because they won't sell him a pizza.

As for his "horde of abusers" shit, gods; this asshole is one of the most toxic people ever to come close to the fandom since cuteosphere/dragondicks, and they had the good graces to fuck off and go back to being a generic pedo furry. I cannot think of anyone currently active in the fandom as noxious as Peet; he's been like this for over half a decade and preying on kids and special individuals for his narcissistic needs, turning them into violent, blind sycophants.
Click to expand...

He really does personify one of the most rancid part of being a fan of anything and it's unquestionable that he's the worst offender in regards to the MLP fandom; Jerry's a massive fucking authoritarian elitist when it comes to how he interacts within the fandom. It's not enough that he disagree with your opinions, no: You are, in fact, WRONG and shame on you for being so.

This is the same guy who made an entire video basically saying "I'm allowed to be right and you're allowed to be wrong, and if you don't like being wrong, then grow up you big baby." despite clear evidence to the fact that he absolutely has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.

I'm not going to sit here being a fucking armchair psychologist, but every time I post a huge fucking dissection detailing the extent of which Jerry formulates his legitimately wrong opinions (as in, I find evidence that directly contradicts what he calls the facts as opposed to me just shitting on his politics and calling that criticism) it just baffles me that someone can so consistently miss beats on even the simplest things. That has to be a textbook example of narcissism right there.

And I wouldn't so much as bat an eye if this was just every so often but it's not.

It's for every. Fucking. Thing.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: That Dumb Derp, KingJ, Ben Laden and 3 others
I still don't get why Jerry doesn't think hypocrisy is a bad thin- waaaaaaait a second

*googles*

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_hypocrisy

Oh. That explains a lot. I think I get Jerry's view now.

This kind of reasoning is fallacious because criticism or objection to the person making the claim does not apply equally, if at all, to the argument itself. Certainly, if the premises are indeed true then source A is likely a hypocrite and should also be included in the guilty party, but this bears no relevance or relationship to the validity or factual-ness of the claim X. In essence, the claim X is being dismissed on grounds of a criticism of A, which is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
The examples on the page actually give a really good insight into how this fallacy works - say a drug addict goes to rehab and then tells people not to do drugs - an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy would apply if someone called them a hypocrite for doing drugs in the past. Note that the only thing involving Jerry that would fit this description is Stockholm and his current condemnation of sexual fanfictions involving children. Fine. He still hasn't acknowledged or refuted it properly (but he'll read that as "the way we like it"), Lizzy still doesn't believe it exists despite mounds of evidence pointing to the contrary (still willing to show it!) but fine.

In essence, Jerry's mindset seems to be that people accusing him of being a hypocrite for saying that [sexual] abuse is bad or pedophilia is bad or being a pervert is bad, et cetera, means that people inherently think the point he's trying to raise is wrong. Obviously, that's bullshit in this case, but let's see why...

Examples:
Jerry: "God, these anime perverts are such a plague."
Someone: "But Jerry, you're a pervert."
Jerry: "That doesn't make my point any less valid!"

Jerry: "I think bronies need to clean up their act and start making the community safer for kids!"
Someone: "But Jerry, you doing TMI Tuesday and encouraging NSFW work of your puppet isn't exactly helping the community be safer for kids..."
Jerry: "So you don't think the community should be safer for kids?"

Jerry: "Josh is such a disgusting person for berating a fan the way he did."
Someone: "Jerry, you berate your fans for the most mundane of reasons as well."
Jerry: "Josh is still disgusting for what he did."

Jerry: "Never post screenshots, since they can easily be doctored."
Someone: "Jerry, you've shared screenshots before."
Jerry: "THEY CAN STILL BE DOCTORED!"

People (at least, we) haven't said that sexual deviancy, perversion, or the safety of children at conventions isn't a problem among bronies when we say that Jerry is wrong for complaining about it. Nobody here shat on Vida for making a petition urging Brony conventions to disinvite pedophiles. We say that Jerry's wrong for complaining about things he has done because they are things he has demonstrably done, and complaining about them makes him look deceitful and untrustworthy.

Jerry, even RationalWiki says that being a hypocrite is dishonest and deceitful.

Hypocrisy is a deceitful tactic used most often by those in power, who say "you must do this" or "you cannot do that" or " this is wrong," while purporting that they themselves do not do said thing when, in fact, they do.

A hypocrite (from the Greek, "actor") is someone who espouses a view, perspective, or philosophy without adhering in any meaningful way to it themselves, especially if they claim that their philosophy applies to all people. The ultimate snarkology of the hypocrite is "do as I say, not as I do." Generally, "hypocrite" is a pejorative term; there are practically no cases where hypocrisy is considered a good thing.
Click to expand...

TL;DR he thinks people calling him a hypocrite means that they think the point he's raising is invalid. The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy applies to very little, if none of his opposition. Using Appeal to Hypocrisy (and likely the rest of the fallacies he lists) is just another way to justify to himself and his fans that he's never wrong and people who he hates are never right.

I don't have the time nor the motivation to look at the others. I had a question about Jerry answered, and that's enough. Given the fact that it's Jerry, and given his hate-boner against Josh and the Rift people/Brittany and Segasister, most of them are probably false or exaggerated anyway.

Nevertheless, I can't wait for Jerry's cabal to become even bigger fallacy-flingers than the Skeptics™.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Ben Laden, saladimitate, That Dumb Derp and 1 other person
Derped223 said:
http://archive.is/TrGu3
View attachment 447169
Click to expand...

You know what? I feel like it's worth making some refutations to these points, because it's amazing how much Lily misses the point.

But first, I'll accuse Lily of a very specific Fallacy, the Fallacy Fallacy. As explained here, "It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as it is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments." The Fallacy Fallacy is generally used by pseudo intellectuals who pretend they're perfect whilst ignoring everyone else. Like Lily! Generally, you have to explain WHY their usage is wrong AND fallacious rather than saying "they're fallacious, therefore they're wrong". Remember, many fallacies actually have legitimate reasoning behind their existence but are mostly bad when you don't explain them properly and are your ONLY argument. Lily's argument is that they commit fallacies, therefore they're wrong and dishonest.

Appeal to Hypocrisy: The trouble with the idea that "pointing out hypocrisy is a fallacy" has to do with the frequency of hypocrisy... and what's being done with it. For example, it's fully in our right to point out Lily's writing of Stockholm and that one pedo-incest fic of Past Sins and call her a hypocrite when she demands attention to pedophilic fanfics in the community. The appeal to hypocrisy doesn't work if these actions are in the past or if the person has somehow made some kind of effort to move past it, but in Lily's case, most of the arguments to her hypocrisy are very much valid.

...though, of course, @1911JD did a better job at explaining THIS point.

Appeal to Moderation: This very much depends on the situation. If we're talking something like slavery or human rights violations, definitely. However, in the realm of political stupidity, moderation exists. In a political setting, unless one party literally has the platform of disinformation or actual evil and the other doesn't, the only people who think that moderation is dangerous are extremists. See: the far Right and Antifa both hating liberals.

Ad Hominem: Bullshit alert, because Lily has done all three at various points. An example includes:

"By the way, you're a fake Christian and your beard makes you look like a pedophile!"
Click to expand...

"But Lily!" Argument: Depends on the argument, and on the person.

Dodging the Question: *cough*

Gish Gallop: isn't that what you're doing here? Of course, the most logical answer to myself and Lily in this regard is simply "but not all walls of text are gish gallops".

High Ground Argument: Am I having a fucking stroke?

"Holocaust Denial" Argument: Holy shit, I'm not having a fucking stroke. Both of these are tactics Lily uses on a constant basis in her videos. See her Artist Meltdown Story where she basically declares that her literally harassing an artist was justified, or her statements that Josh telling his fans to not harass her is a dogwhistle to dogpile her. Also, generally the entire existence of dogwhistle arguments in general.

Internal Argument: *COUGH FUCKING COUGH* You basically make your whole fucking arguments around not listening to people like Josh, Brittany, Blake and others but not only is this related to Dodging the Question, this is also a fucking antithesis to the point of calling the Appeal to Moderation a fallacy.

One Way Hash: Not everything a person says has to be an argument or a fact. There's such a thing as "opinions". Speaking of which,

Both Opinion Arguments: When do people actually do this, Lily? That said, we know you think that people shouldn't have opinions that aren't your own, because you've admitted as such in a great deal of your previous tactic.

PRATT: Depends on the topic. You still have yet to actually refute the points with actual evidence, Lily.

Psychological Projection: Has anyone ordered Lily a mirror yet?

Sealioning: I'm lazy. Here's a comment someone made that explains this perfectly.

219.png_large


Style over Substance/Tone Argument: Aka: "Waaa, why don't people listen to me when I insult them, harass them, lie about them, defame them, libel them and moooore? WAAAAAA" Anyway, something that I've learned while listening to actual conversations (not that Lily would know what one is) is that people use specific intonations and usage of words that can mean the same thing, but have different connotations. Hell, CHILDREN can usually understand the purpose of tone. Lily has less understanding than a child.

Whataboutism: Same reasoning that Argument to Hypocrisy can be thrown off can apply here. With that saaaaid, people can easily justify being against your arguments and opinions due to the company you hold because people in groups tend to hold similar opinions.

Sorry if this seemed overly autistic, but it was too much stupid to leave alone.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Ben Laden, saladimitate, Derped223 and 5 others
Do you want to know the best part of all of this? Not only is Jerry demonstrably guilty of gish galloping in this post (The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.), he's also guilty of fallacy dropping.

Call it a fallacy-dropping gish gallop or something like that.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy#Fallacy-dropping

It is not acceptable to merely state that one's opponent is using a fallacy (as above). One must explain how the opponent's argument is fallacious (eg, they claim that you are a shill), why it is wrong (there's no evidence that you are a paid government disinformation agent), and what that means for their argument (if you're not a shill, then your arguments can't be hand waved away).

This need not be a drawn-out paragraph. Even "your ad hominem is irrelevant to my argument, so my argument stands" is sufficient.

Otherwise, one runs into the risk of fallacy dropping -- claiming someone's argument is wrong without bothering to explain why -- which comes dangerously close to ad hominem. (It's equivalent to shouting "your logic is bad!" and claiming victory.)
Click to expand...

"It is not acceptable to merely state that one's opponent is using a fallacy. One must explain how the opponent's argument is fallacious... why it is wrong... and what that means for their argument"
Well fuck! I guess RationalWiki are professional Sealion...ers!

Either that, or Jerry's just too afraid to actually prove his points so he's giving a name the idea of the burden of proof being shifted on the accuser and is calling it wrong.

How the opponent's argument is fallacious: Jerry is making several weak arguments which he isn't backing up with anything other than assertions

Why is it wrong: Jerry is making too many arguments for someone to easily object to, and is naming too many fallacies without ever explaining why they apply; he could list any fallacy, say that Josh, Lunacorva, Segasister, and Brittany all use it, but unless he says how they do and provides proof (something he's notorious for not doing), then it's a moot point.

What it means for his argument: It can be waved away because he isn't showing us how each person is guilty of their corresponding fallacy - save for maybe the high-ground one about Toonkritic, but he also listed the Psychological projection fallacy about arguments made to one person that also apply to oneself, so...

This is just brilliant. Jerry tries to act all smart and knowledgeable by resorting to the one tactic that SocJus types criticizing Skeptics™ for (usually with good reason, but I digress) - fallacy dropping. He's accusing mainly the "Rift", among others, of all these fallacies but doesn't explain why they are guilty of all of them. He just explains that they are, which, as RW puts it, is the equivalent of shouting "your logic is bad!" and claiming victory, which is something he tends to do. A lot. And right there is a prime example of it. Hell, even the Skeptics™ do a better job with their fallacy dropping.

By the way, the only reason I'm using rationalwiki to back myself up is because it'd probably turn Jerry against them, since, after this, his worldview will inevitably conflict with theirs
:smug::smug:
(also they're not always wrong, note how I never said that the "appeal to hypocrisy" article was wrong, just that Jerry's usage of it was)
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: DevilsAdvocate963, speedcore, armoreddinnerjacket and 4 others
“Holocaust Denial” Argument - Accusing someone of lying or having ulterior motives and offering no further proof. See Internal Argument.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure They use this particular argument tactic daily to shut down people like Britney and Blake.
 
emmens said:
I'm pretty sure They use this particular argument tactic daily to shut down people like Britney and Blake.
Click to expand...
Me: "Jerry doesn't actually care about kids in the Brony community, he's using them as a shield to deflect criticism while he still makes sexually-charged and explicit posts on his Tumblr."

Jerry, deleting his TMI Tuesday posts: "You're accusing me of lying or having ulterior motives and offering no further proof!"
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGqOZS8ww1I
ok I get the lawsuits but this video is just bad, so bad I need to talk about it.

first the declaimer
the following episode contains discussion of diversy in media, represtation, and mental conditioning inherent to living in a bubble of systemic privilege
Click to expand...
ok a harmless declaimer nothing wrong with that but the last one
mental conditioning inherent to living in a bubble of systemic privilege
Click to expand...
is privilege is still a thing?! I though that was disproven, will that's a little stupid but ok he's not acting bitchy...
If you don't like the idea of diversy, think represtation isn't important, or that systemic privilege doesn't exist, then please feel free to throw yourself off the nearest pier
Click to expand...
ok this is very bitchy of jerry to do and after hearing this. It make you sound like a entitled to your opinion and don't want to hear anyone else's and you will delete comments and asks that have different opinions from you and you make fun of those people on your Tumblr and videos. And we aren't in the real video now honey and you are already sound like a bitch, so be nice or in the corner you go.
I'm just going to go to my points and not try to get subtitles so heres the video --->https://youtu.be/JGqOZS8ww1I?t=39
note: ok like my fucking download is not working so now so this is part one part now will have a part two
 
  • Late
Reactions: Kamenshin, armoreddinnerjacket, The Janitor and 2 others
speedcore said:
Oh jesus. I liked her content as something to watch mindlessly while doing homework and shit but never looked deep into her as a person, what a fucking class act lmao
Click to expand...
Tends to be most people's reactions to him - you like his content on his Youtube channel, probably even think he's a funny guy - and then you go to his Tumblr, and everything goes downhill from there.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: saladimitate, Derped223, Kamenshin and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back