Principal Points & Conclusions

A document that summarizes another document, however, the summarizing document does not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the document it proclaims to summarize.

P1: I read the principal points & conclusions memo which said there were no grounds for dismissal?

P2: Oh jeez! You cant read a document summarizing another document because on occasion the summarizing document does not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the document it proclaims to summarize.

P1: What! No! There were no ground for dismissal.

P2: Sure. However, the four hundred page report says otherwise.

by MD451 May 23, 2023

Post-Nut Confusion

Post-Nut Confusion, (Not to be *confused* with post-nut clarity) is the feeling of confusion after you have just bust a nut. It's like you don't even know what you just watched. You don't feel shame or guilt, just straight-up confusion.

Person 1: What the fuck did I just watch. Dude, I think I just got Post-Nut Confusion right now, not even clarity. I'm just confused as hell.

by skkkys March 22, 2024

You have pronoun confusion

You though I was talking about YOU (Singlular/Localized/That Specific One) and are conflating the broad conceptual YOU (People in the abstract) or what I am saying applied to YOU in which case it would be (Peripheral/Incidental) YOU or I was speaking propositionally in which case what I'm saying relates to the person issuing the proposition but isn't necessarily directed at the person theme. Additionally, I am the I to whom I am referring when I write and, therefore, the intersubjective you would not apply to me.

Hym Iam "You have pronoun confusion. I probably did that wrong. That's why we need Genjustsu no Doki. That should fix that immediately."

by Hym Iam February 2, 2026

Fallacy of Impossible Conclusions

The rhetorical trap of demanding that your opponent reach a conclusion with a level of certainty, completeness, or finality that is literally unattainable in any human discourse. It's the opposite of jumping to conclusions—instead of accepting flimsy evidence as sufficient, it rejects all evidence as insufficient unless it meets impossible standards. In online debates, this fallacy appears when someone demands "absolute proof" of a historical event, "100% certainty" about a scientific finding, or "complete information" before any conclusion can be drawn. The goal isn't to find truth but to create an epistemic black hole where no conclusion can ever escape. It's a metafallacy because it abuses the legitimate principle of "don't jump to conclusions" to justify never concluding anything at all.

Example: "He demanded I provide every single vote count from the 1876 election before I could claim it was contested—a perfect Fallacy of Impossible Conclusions designed to make historical consensus forever unreachable."

by Dumu The Void March 11, 2026

Jumping to Conclusions Imputation

A fallacy fallacy where one accuses an opponent of “jumping to conclusions” even when the conclusion is well‑supported by the evidence presented. The accuser insists that any conclusion beyond the most cautious, minimalist reading constitutes a reckless leap, effectively demanding that no inference be drawn at all. This imputation is often used to shut down analysis in discussions where the evidence is clear but the accuser wishes to avoid the implications. It weaponizes the legitimate caution against hasty conclusions by applying it where no haste occurred.

Example: “When she noted that repeated patterns suggested a trend, he accused her of jumping to conclusions—Jumping to Conclusions Imputation, treating reasonable synthesis as irrational haste.”

by Dumu The Void March 25, 2026

Retention of Conclusions

A meta-fallacy and meta-bias where one prevents an opponent from reaching any conclusion by constantly accusing them of “jumping to conclusions” whenever they attempt to synthesize evidence or draw an inference. Unlike genuine caution against hasty generalization, retention of conclusions is a rhetorical tactic used to stall discussion indefinitely. The accuser demands an impossible level of certainty—requiring that every possible alternative be ruled out, every source be verified beyond doubt, and every ambiguity be resolved—before any conclusion can be entertained. The effect is to paralyze the opponent, making any forward movement in reasoning seem reckless. This bias weaponizes epistemic humility to avoid ever committing to a position.

Retention of Conclusions Example: “Every time she tried to summarize the evidence, he cried ‘jumping to conclusions!’—retention of conclusions, using the fear of haste to prevent any conclusion at all.”

by Abzugal April 3, 2026

Not going to jump to conclusions

Already doing it bitch. How's that ear? How many bullet holes do I have in MY ear? I'll give you a hint: The number looks like an "O" and it also looks like a bullet hole, interestingly enough. Better question is: How many mentally retarded billionaires does it take for my theory of AI to work? Another hint? The answer to the second question is the SAME AS THE FIRST! 😃 It's a two-fer!

Hym "Ok. They are not going to jump to conclusions THIS time like they did LAST TIME or like the time that they drone struck a boat... And then claimed it was drug traffickers... And then it WASN'T ACTUALLY DRUG TRAFFICLERS... It was just fishermen... We are going to do that THIS TIME. INSTEAD... We are going to wait to see if it's the 🔫 schizophrenia AGAIN... And then we are going to lie and say it was our political enemies... Even though we know it WASN'T THAT... Ok. I'm ready. I'm ready for the not jumping to conclusions we are about to do.... Ok? Go!"

by Hym Iam October 1, 2025