(November 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm)Hammy Wrote:(November 19, 2017 at 2:08 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, this exactly what I'm trying to say (and apparently doing a poor job of it, lol). Context matters. Facts about the people involved matter. Every detail helps paint a little bit of the big picture so that we can draw reasonable conclusions. But, I think I've asserted otherwise in the past. I just want to make sure I'm being intellectually honest on the subject. Perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking that an accusation of rape is more than mundane. I suppose rape is mundane in that we know it happens, and it happens all the time.
So I think the conclusion is that testimony in and of itself is not evidence. Because you believe the testimony of these women not simply because they made allegations but for more than that.
Yes, but having reasons for accepting the testimony beyond the testimony in and of itself requires that I make judgement calls and subjective evaluations of factors such as source and witness credibility, the personal/professional history of the accused, and my overall level of credulity for the accusation itself, taking context into account. The testimony alone isn't evidence, but neither are these other reasons that I have concluded support it. Are they?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
