Testimony is Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

Steve manages to misunderstand your position AGAIN and is condescending about demonstrating his miscomprehension of it to boot in 3...2...

[Thumpalumpacus]

How to best deal with a headache, draino or aspirin, draino or aspirin...?  I've heard that they both put a quick end to headaches.  

The world may never know.

Should it really surprise us. Wooter is as ignorant of medicine as he is of everything else.

I was referring to his spiritual placebo, not his medicine cabinet.

[LadyForCamus]

Steve manages to misunderstand your position AGAIN and is condescending about demonstrating his miscomprehension it to boot in 3...2...

It's almost like he's refusing to see the forest through the trees.  I wonder why that is? 

Oh, wait.  I think I know why.  😏

[Astonished]

Steve manages to misunderstand your position AGAIN and is condescending about demonstrating his miscomprehension it to boot in 3...2...

It's almost like he's refusing to see the forest through the trees.  I wonder why that is? 

Oh, wait.  I think I know why.  😏

Well your use of a particularly religious claim rather than some out-of-left-field-miscellaneous supernatural one showed remarkable restraint from an ad absurdum, so kudos.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the difference between the two?  

[LadyForCamus]

There is certainly no shortage of absurd claims circulating throughout the human race. Probably, the most absurd supernatural claim one can fathom has been asserted by someone, somewhere.

---

No need to repeat.  Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

Nope... not filling up the thread with useless posts.  Especially when people are just going to say I'm lying anyway.

RR:  I answered the question already.
me:  I don't think you did.  Prove it.
RR:  No.

lol, gotcha.  😉

You are the one who brought up the appeals, I am asking if there is a difference if the testimony overrides the DNA evidence in the appeal, or in the trial.

If you're going to pretend to be obtuse, then I'm going to talk to you like you actually are.

Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.  The red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Logical form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.


Example:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?

Ken: But what is morality exactly?

Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?...

Returning to our discussion (some paraphrasing).  Bolded/italicized is your red herring:

LCF/TGB:   DNA and eyewitness testimony are not on equal footing in terms of strength as evidence.  DNA evidence overturns cases based off of eyewitness testimony all the time, but eyewitness testimony has never overturned a case based in DNA evidence.

RR: And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Get it now...?

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence...

I never once said that.  In fact, I have been one of a few minority who concedes that eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence, but of the very low quality and unreliable variety. Having you been paying attention to my participation in these threads at all? Try again with less straw.

of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

The rest of this gibberish is irrelevant because you have failed to accurately represent my position at the start.  You and Steve need serious work on your reading comprehension skills.

[The Grand Nudger]

The implication being that they lack intelligence rather than integrity.  I see no reason to choose between the two.

[LadyForCamus]

Also, RR. When ever you get a chance ofc, could you please elaborate on how you would go about distinguishing between the true observation of a gremlin and the hallucination of one? Think carefully here...you have a lot at stake, lol.

---

And this is about what I've come to expect from every thread RR opens up. He introduces a topic, insisting that it has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. He is so careful about this that he won't even take a weak position on the subject that he says he wants to talk about. We try to engage with him, but it's hard when someone is sparing from the shadows. He asks for opinions, tries to dispute them, but never plainly offers his own.

But inevitably, after ten or so pages of holding his ass to the fire about what his position actually is, he gives in just a little bit, and it ends up blowing his entire argument to shit, beyond any chance of recovery. In this particular thread, it was right around here:

"I think that the observation of a gremlin either by myself or others (or something that fits that description) is sufficient evidence that it exists. As to the number... I don't know if there is a absolute value (there are a number of variables), and it depends on the testimony itself, and how good it is. If I seen it, then a couple of other people to confirm what I saw and not hallucinating; I think would be sufficient (because I can rule out lying at least in myself). And if there isn't reason against it,a few more from testimony alone."

I do think he realizes his error, and from that point on it's just spinning- playing dumb, answering questions with questions, answering questions with cryptic responses that don't explain anything, and generally pretending that he doesn't understand what people are saying. This goes on, and on, and ON until the last of us left get completely frustrated, and abandon the thread.

Predictable. Just like I can predict that he is going to charge me with poising the well, or ad hominem. The irony, of course, is that we HAVE been discussing the topic, and have simply grown exhausted with his dishonesty.

Frankly, it's sick. This is not how a psychologically healthy person engages with their fellow human beings.

[Amarok]

Should it really surprise us. Wooter is as ignorant of medicine as he is of everything else.

I was referring to his spiritual placebo, not his medicine cabinet.

Oh okay I guess I must have misread something

[Astonished]

Frankly, it's sick.  This is not how a psychologically healthy person engages with their fellow human beings.

All of the rest of that was fantastic, but really, this is all that needs to be said. And to think how trivially easy it would be to avoid that mental castration in the first place, or how quickly that could be cured if their self-maintained barrier could be broken through.

I was pondering this on my way home from physical therapy a few minutes ago and recalled an episode of Doctor Who where even in the far-advanced future, people were living in a bubble of unskeptical buffoonery and ignorance, and when the Doctor confronted one of the people behind it and accused him of enslaving those people, he is met with the question, "Are they still slaves if they don't know they are slaves?" The Doctor vehemently, without a second's hesitation, responds "Yes." Because of the nature of religion and how it instills this slave mentality into people, it's unjust and immoral of people who were never inculcated or who are emancipated from it to extricate those still being enslaved, much as they might fight us off with a bloody vengeance like Agents in the Matrix.

Everyone still in the trappings of faith is demonstrably delusional, bar none, and while degrees vary, that does enslave them. It's impossible for it not to affect at least some aspect of their life or behavior. Even if it drives them to be a good person, it's meaningless if someone is nice to people because they're afraid of being anally raped with a flaming chainsaw for eternity than because they're simply of the mind that people should be nice to each other because it makes them and others happier, something rational and demonstrably true.

So to the slaves-come-Agents, wake the fuck up, please. You're fooling no one but yourselves and nothing but improvement to your mental state and lives will come from liberating yourselves. You have literally nothing to lose.