My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.
Certainly he can he an ‘‘POS’’ but I don’t know. I don’t know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.
Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.
Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?
I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.
My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.
So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.
I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.
When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I’m disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.
It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.
Certainly he can he an ‘‘POS’’ but I don’t know. I don’t know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.
You can see that he kissed her on the lips and she said she didn’t want or consent to that. What more evidence do you need? Do you think she is lying?
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.
So you don’t want any more evidence. So you either believe her or you think she’s a liar. Which is it?
I gave you my answer to that already.
Removed by mod
Another one making it personal. Seem certain people cannot have a decent argument without becoming personal.
Removed by mod
If that’s what you believe, that’s alright. I won’t comment to you any further.
No. You didn’t. You said “I’m not saying she’s lying”. That’s not the same.
Do you believe her statements or do you think she’s lying?
Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.
Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?
I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.
My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.
So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.
I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.
When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I’m disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.
You’re taking empiricism to absurd lengths. Why?
It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you’re being a little pedantic here.