Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

Beep-Beep's disingenuous approach to the entire topic owes itself to his ignorance about how things actually work. Testimony is unreliable, period. How would one verify one's testimony is accurate? Physical evidence might help but would the testimony of OTHERS be sufficient? And how would one verify THEIR testimonial claims regarding the first person's testimony are accurate? It becomes a circular fucking argument. Testimony, by itself, is worthless as evidence. Even in the presence of empirical evidence, at best it could only serve as a weak connective tissue between two or more pieces of physical evidence that would equate more to a set of vital organs, if they don't contradict or have no relevance to the actual case or evidence. So even if it could prove some value in that limited set of circumstances, the lack of ability to verify its accuracy independently (with no evidence to bolster the testimony on its own) casts major doubt on its actual utility even then. So in the hierarchy of evidence, it's as close to a zero value as anything could get. That is objectively, factually true, so it does not hinge on anyone's fucking opinion, which I pointed out in the very first response post, and this lying, deluded turd still claims to be looking for others' 'opinions' on it. I'm not the only one who's pointed this out to him, either, so even though this thread started out as obnoxious trolling, at this point it's become phenomenal trolling. We're talking shit-eating Doofus Rik level trolling.

[Ravenshire]

people aren't listening anyway.

Maybe it's because we can't tell what the fuck you're trying to say. You're all over the map, changing your stance every third post, avoiding legitimate inquiries to the very heart of the stated matter and even changing the text of posts after they're quoted.

And you wonder why people aren't taking you at face value any more.

All your twisting, turning, ducking and dodging has led me to the conclusion that had enough people said "yes, RR. Of course testimony is acceptable evidence" we would have gotten a gotcha argument about testimony in the buy-bull. If that really wasn't where you were going, maybe being so disingenuous and flat out dishonest wasn't the right tack to take.

[RoadRunner79]

Not really trying to say anything... or get anyone to change their mind here (as I have said). I suppose that asking people such questions so I can learn where they are at, and accurately represent them is a difficult and foreign concept here (by some reactions anyway). Just assume I must have an ulterior motive.

[Ravenshire]

Not really trying to say anything... or get anyone to change their mind here (as I have said). I suppose that asking people such questions so I can learn where they are at, and accurately represent them is a difficult and foreign concept here (by some reactions anyway). Just assume I must have an ulterior motive.

No, you were asking us to pick between two choices of a false dichotomy and chastising us every time one of us picked something in between. Then you resorted to attempting to debunk physical evidence and ignored any refutations with "start another thread" even though it pertained directly to your comments. Disingenuity at it's finest.

Trust me, I have no trouble believing you have an ulterior motive, based on the evidence you've presented.

Those gotcha moments are harder to attain around here than you thought they'd be, aren't they?

[RoadRunner79]

I'm done talking about me.....and done repeating myself, when it won't be believed anyway.

[Amarok]

people aren't listening anyway.

No were listening. You just don't like how we respond to what is being said .

[Ravenshire]

people aren't listening anyway.

No were listening. You just don't like how we respond to what is being said .

The problem is we paid more attention to what he actually said than what he wanted us to hear.

[Amarok]

No were listening. You just don't like how we respond to what is being said .

The problem is we paid more attention to what he actually said than what he wanted us to hear.

That too

[LadyForCamus]

So, just to summarize: RR starts a thread presenting us with a scenerio in which he picks up a chair with his hands, and hits a man over the head with it in front of 11 people, yet by some miracle leaves not a trace of physical evidence behind (talk about an extraordinary claim). Then, he asks us to choose between two options of a false dichotomy; an oversimplified representation of eyewitness testimony with no room for any situational context; regarding this stripped down, unrealistic hypothetical scenario that he has manufactured in hopes of leaving us no choice but to reach the conclusion he WANTS us to reach.

Then, he follows with this - and I quote:

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? ... Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence?

(Mind you this thread is piggy-backing off of a discussion about whether the Bible is the claim or the evidence, but RR insists he doesn't want to talk about that here.)

He then spends the next twenty something pages insisting he isn't arguing for testimony as evidence, and that he just wants to talk about it, the nature of it, the value of it, and what other folks believe about it.

THEN, when we try to ACTUALLY discuss the value of testimony as evidence, by way of exploring the spectrum of types of claims it's commonly proffered as evidence for, we're accused of "shifting goal posts" within a dialogue that he, himself, insists is not a debate.

Then he says he wants everyone to stop saying eyewitness testimony isn't evidence.

Epic fail, yet again, RR. Now, take your ball and go home.

[RoadRunner79]

So, just to summarize:  RR starts a thread presenting us with a scenerio in which he picks up a chair with his hands, and hits a man over the head with it in front of 11 people, yet by some miracle leaves not a trace of physical evidence behind (talk about an extraordinary claim).  Then, he asks us to choose between two options of a false dichotomy; an oversimplified representation of the value of eyewitness testimony with no room for any situational context; regarding a stripped down, unrealistic hypothetical scenario that he has manufactured in hopes of leaving us no choice but to reach the conclusion he WANTS us to reach.

Then, he follows with this - and I quote:

Are you  going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? ...  Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence?

(Mind you this thread is piggy-backing off of a discussion about whether the Bible is the claim or the evidence, but RR insists he doesn't want to talk about that here.)

He then spends the next twenty something pages insisting he isn't arguing for testimony as evidence, and that he just wants to talk about it, the nature of it, the value of it, and what other folks believe about it.

THEN, when we try to ACTUALLY discuss the value of testimony as evidence, by way of exploring the spectrum of types of claims it may be proffered as evidence for, we're accused of "shifting goal posts" within a dialogue that he, himself, insists is not a debate.  

Then he says he wants everyone to stop saying eyewitness testimony isn't evidence.

Epic fail, yet again, RR.  Now take your ball and go home.

It wouldn't of took 20 some pages, if I didn't have to keep repeating myself (which is probably my fault for indulging people as much as I did). Why is it so difficult to understand that I may just be trying to gather what peoples different opinions are about the subject.
You say that I left you no choice in the two options - how do you figure that? You where free to choose, and if you think the evidence was not sufficient or there was no evidence; then the option of "no" would follow... that is your choice. I'm not demanding or arguing for a certain outcome. I do find it interesting, and out of the norm, but I wasn't making an argument. And if you want to expand, and offer an opinion that it is either not sufficient or not evidence at all, then anyone was free to do that as well.

As to wanting everyone to stop saying that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence. Sure I do... do you not think you are justified in your position and think that others should feel the same? However I wasn't saying that here. I wasn't attempting to get people to make that shift. In light of the questions and the scenario they re-evaluate their positions then I think that is good. If they re-evaluate and come to the same position, that is good also. I didn't give them any reason to change their position, but they are thinking about it. And even if they didn't really think about it, that is OK too, because all I asked for was their opinion.

Since no one took me up on the offer to make a thread to discuss (apparently that was some great thing to ask of people) I was thinking that I may. If nothing else, people can see what the difference is, between making an inquiry, and presenting an argument for my position.
However I am learning, I am going to just start ignoring; appeals to motive, arguments attacking the person rather than the proposition, and also those who don't really say anything but just re-state their position with more insistence.