I don’t know if the objectively true things listed are well supported or evidence of a cover up.
For the modified shock collar theory, according to the NY post article, he demonstrated it vibrating on stream. If it was a modified shock-only collar it wouldn’t be possible to vibrate it.
For Hasan’s initial suggestion that she clipped herself it doesn’t mean she necessarily did, only that he thought that’s what happened. I feel like him changing his statement later to say that he doesn’t really know why she acted that way isn’t evidence of shocking, rather admitting his initial theory may not be correct.
Yeah, the sticky was on the Hassan subreddit. Of course things likely changed since then.
I don’t know if the objectively true things listed are well supported
They are.
Detailed explanation of which model collar he has, why it is clearly the shock version and not the vibration-only version. It seems perfectly compelling to me and nothing Hasan has said has addressed it in the slightest that I have seen.
Those are the three factual things I cited. What out of that is not factual?
according to the NY post article
Oh, well in that case lol
If it was a modified shock-only collar it wouldn’t be possible to vibrate it.
Not at all true. Shock collars can also vibrate (in general and also for the specific model in question). The point is that it was clearly a specific model that could either shock or vibrate, and he removed the prongs and taped over where they used to be. Watch the YouTube video above to see details and model numbers.
For Hasan’s initial suggestion that she clipped herself it doesn’t mean she necessarily did, only that he thought that’s what happened.
I will go back to: Isn’t that weird to you? Like if your animal suddenly made a noise of pain, would you just decide on a random explanation that was a “suggestion” and start telling people that’s what happened? What if she hurt herself? What if she needed help or had something stuck in her paw or something? What’s the innocent explanation where he was super confident about his “suggestion” for about a day and then changed it to the alleged truth, which is that he doesn’t know what happened? What else might be “suggestions” do you think? This is why it means absolutely nothing to me when Hasan “debunks” something by assuring people that it’s not true: He’s already clearly fine being dishonest, so why would I believe him about other stuff?
Yeah, the sticky was on the Hassan subreddit. Of course things likely changed since then.
What likely changed since then? Do you think discussion and debunking is now allowed on Hasan’s subreddit? Or just everywhere else on Reddit as it always has been?
If it’s a model which can shock or vibrate then everything checks out when it comes to Hasan’s statements. It doesn’t matter if it is a model which can shock as well. Just because the model has the capability to shock doesn’t prove that he is using it that way.
In other words, if we assume good faith, nothing that he said can be disproven as not happening according to the way it was described.
1:09: “It has the capacity to vibrate and that’s it.”
3:51: “I do not have a shock collar for Kaya”
I realize you are just totally ignoring a lot of the other things I’m saying, like him pulling the other dog by the tail or various questions which obviously don’t have good answers. But somehow even trying to pare it down to this super-simple reduced thing to focus on, you managed to focus in on an aspect where it is still clear that he is lying.
Your boy is dishonest, and your boy shocked his dog and then lied about it. If you don’t want to address it any further, then I get it. It’s a hard thing to defend…
It’s not that I’m necessarily ignoring everything. I just feel like a lot of what is being mentioned doesn’t really count as evidence. It’s seems to come off as an attempt to depict Hasan as acting in bad faith. Then using the bad faith explanation for what happened.
But the standard-of-proof to show he was shocking his dog would be to show that events can’t be explained in good faith. Hasan may just may not have known it’s a collar capable of shocking if he never used it, maybe it’s another model that people identified, or was something set up by another trainer, etc… A lot of what is being presented as evidence isn’t from independent investigations and can be easily be made to depict something scandalous.
The closest we have to a investigation is Taylor Lorenz in which she said she interviewed several witnesses and none of them alleged shock use or abuse.
It’s seems to come off as an attempt to depict Hasan as acting in bad faith. Then using the bad faith explanation for what happened.
What is the good faith explanation for grabbing a dog by its tail and then pulling it to move the dog to where you want it to be?
(I know you’re going to ignore this question as you repeatedly have before. Honestly I’m probably done with this conversation, I have gotten more or less what I aimed to get out of it. I’ve exposed you to the truth, whether you want to accept it or not, which is a useful thing to do. And I’ve given you a chance to air your side or poke holes in my argument in case I missed something, I think you’ve had enough of a chance at this point that it’s not really necessary to keep going in case you come out with some damning counterargument all of a sudden.)
Hasan may just may not have known it’s a collar capable of shocking if he never used it
Sure. And then he just didn’t know he was removing the prongs from it which he didn’t know were there, and taping over them (with the clearly recently-applied strip of black tape which has no dog hair on it as it would if it had been stuck on even a week before). He just has a sleepwalking problem where he modifies his household appliances coupled with amnesia about their general nature and function as to their primary purpose. After all, we’ve got to assume good faith no matter what kind of self-contradictory horseshit comes out of this mouth, so as long as there is some explanation no matter how tortured and nonsensical, that’s the most likely explanation. Call it Oddham’s Razor.
A lot of what is being presented as evidence isn’t from independent investigations and can be easily be made to depict something scandalous.
If the viewer is incapable of critically evaluating what’s there, then sure (and I notice that a lot of Hasan’s defenders do seem to exist in that kind of evidence-free safe space where it is just all competing tones of voice and firm assertions about what obviously happened.) In the world where someone can hold up and critically evaluate evidentiary claims, and see which ones generally make sense and which ones are clear self-serving deflection and bullshit, there is only one real answer to this issue.
I’m not defending pulling the dog by the tail. I’m just saying it’s a separate issue from the specific claim that he shocked the dog. They are separate so it isn’t topical for the shock collar discussion.
The point is that there just isn’t enough evidence for the shock collar claim. Offering an alternative explanation of events doesn’t meet the standard of proof. Especially when the tangible evidence we do have, like eye witness accounts and demonstration of the collar suggest a shock was likely not used.
I’m not defending pulling the dog by the tail. I’m just saying it’s a separate issue from the specific claim that he shocked the dog.
What? No it isn’t. He’s a piece of shit for pulling the dog by the tail, so there stops being a reason to assume good faith as far as his treatment of some other dog. Same as when his explanation changes or contradicts visible evidence (like the model of collar), there stops being a reason to assume he’s telling the truth about things that are less cut and dried.
Offering an alternative explanation of events doesn’t meet the standard of proof.
Why does this not apply to Hasan’s explanation?
Especially when the tangible evidence we do have, like eye witness accounts
I don’t really care what people aligned with Hasan have to say about it. Especially since, like I said, they lose credibility to me when their explanations contradict one another or the visible evidence. “Tangible evidence” to me is what I can see or a factual argument that starts from first principles.
This is something I’ve noticed MAGA people do, too: They basically outsource their critical thinking to some authority or other, and get uncomfortable with the idea of evaluating factual claims. You’re defining “independent investigation” in this no-true-Scotsman type of way, where anything that supports what you want to believe is “an independent investigation” or an “eye witness account,” but someone holding up the actual model of collar Hasan is using and making a compelling case on the facts of the matter is “an alternative explanation.” And there’s no reason why Hasan’s explanation contradicting those visible facts would impact his credibility going forward.
It seems like you’re actively refusing to evaluate the claims on the merits, instead defaulting back to where Hasan and his supporters are trustworthy even when their explanations change from one day to the next or one supporter to the next, or contradict physical evidence, and anyone who has bad things to say is untrustworthy (I guess simply by reason of having bad things to say about him.)
(I also note that your explanation contradicts Hasan’s. He’s saying the collar is not a shock collar. You’re saying it could be a shock collar, but he just didn’t know it had the shock function. That kind of thing is what directs his backers’ credibility straight into the garbage as far as I’m concerned.)
(I mean, if Hasan’s case was to hold up the collar clearly close to the camera, show all sides of it, and say very specifically “No it is not the ET-300, it is this other model of collar, see they look similar” then that would be a strong counterargument that puts criticism down in that category of “an alternative proposed explanation.” But he’s stayed far, far, far away from anything factual and clear like that, which is pretty notable to me. I mean, at this point even if he did do that there would be no reason to think he didn’t just buy a vibration-only collar in the meantime… what he could easily have done is at any point during the hours of drama that ensued after the initial shock event, he could have walked over to Kaya, grabbed the collar, showed it to the camera holding it close up showing all sides. The whole thing would have been a non issue. To me him refusing to do that when people were saying “SHOW THE COLLAR,” and then when he did it the next day it clearly being a modified shocking-capable collar which he claimed was not shock capable, plus various other circumstantial evidence like pulling the dog’s tail and hiding the remote from a camera that was placed in a position to show it, adds up to exactly what it seems like it adds up to.)
Anyway, I am more or less done with this conversation. You reacted pretty much exactly like I would expect a Hasan stan to react, I was just sort of surprised to find that on Lemmy, I thought it was more of a Reddit thing. Good talking with you, good times.
The standard of proof of shocking vs not-shocking isn’t to prove innocence that it’s impossible to shock the dog, it’s to prove that the shock actually occurred. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If another valid explanation exists and can’t be ruled out (especially when that explanation is even supported by evidence), then it isn’t proven that a shock happened.
I apologize in advance for not responding to every point, but a lot of this discussion has shifted away from evidence and into speculation about people’s motives or behavior. Speculation on how people might react in certain situations or behave can’t be really used as proof.
I don’t know if the objectively true things listed are well supported or evidence of a cover up.
For the modified shock collar theory, according to the NY post article, he demonstrated it vibrating on stream. If it was a modified shock-only collar it wouldn’t be possible to vibrate it.
For Hasan’s initial suggestion that she clipped herself it doesn’t mean she necessarily did, only that he thought that’s what happened. I feel like him changing his statement later to say that he doesn’t really know why she acted that way isn’t evidence of shocking, rather admitting his initial theory may not be correct.
Yeah, the sticky was on the Hassan subreddit. Of course things likely changed since then.
They are.
Those are the three factual things I cited. What out of that is not factual?
Oh, well in that case lol
Not at all true. Shock collars can also vibrate (in general and also for the specific model in question). The point is that it was clearly a specific model that could either shock or vibrate, and he removed the prongs and taped over where they used to be. Watch the YouTube video above to see details and model numbers.
I will go back to: Isn’t that weird to you? Like if your animal suddenly made a noise of pain, would you just decide on a random explanation that was a “suggestion” and start telling people that’s what happened? What if she hurt herself? What if she needed help or had something stuck in her paw or something? What’s the innocent explanation where he was super confident about his “suggestion” for about a day and then changed it to the alleged truth, which is that he doesn’t know what happened? What else might be “suggestions” do you think? This is why it means absolutely nothing to me when Hasan “debunks” something by assuring people that it’s not true: He’s already clearly fine being dishonest, so why would I believe him about other stuff?
What likely changed since then? Do you think discussion and debunking is now allowed on Hasan’s subreddit? Or just everywhere else on Reddit as it always has been?
Another bonus: Israel’s behind it
If it’s a model which can shock or vibrate then everything checks out when it comes to Hasan’s statements. It doesn’t matter if it is a model which can shock as well. Just because the model has the capability to shock doesn’t prove that he is using it that way.
In other words, if we assume good faith, nothing that he said can be disproven as not happening according to the way it was described.
This is such a weird conversation lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZU2qy3CRk0
0:46: “I do not have a shock collar for Kaya”
1:09: “It has the capacity to vibrate and that’s it.”
3:51: “I do not have a shock collar for Kaya”
I realize you are just totally ignoring a lot of the other things I’m saying, like him pulling the other dog by the tail or various questions which obviously don’t have good answers. But somehow even trying to pare it down to this super-simple reduced thing to focus on, you managed to focus in on an aspect where it is still clear that he is lying.
Your boy is dishonest, and your boy shocked his dog and then lied about it. If you don’t want to address it any further, then I get it. It’s a hard thing to defend…
It’s not that I’m necessarily ignoring everything. I just feel like a lot of what is being mentioned doesn’t really count as evidence. It’s seems to come off as an attempt to depict Hasan as acting in bad faith. Then using the bad faith explanation for what happened.
But the standard-of-proof to show he was shocking his dog would be to show that events can’t be explained in good faith. Hasan may just may not have known it’s a collar capable of shocking if he never used it, maybe it’s another model that people identified, or was something set up by another trainer, etc… A lot of what is being presented as evidence isn’t from independent investigations and can be easily be made to depict something scandalous.
The closest we have to a investigation is Taylor Lorenz in which she said she interviewed several witnesses and none of them alleged shock use or abuse.
https://www.usermag.co/p/hasan-piker-and-the-future-no-one
What is the good faith explanation for grabbing a dog by its tail and then pulling it to move the dog to where you want it to be?
(I know you’re going to ignore this question as you repeatedly have before. Honestly I’m probably done with this conversation, I have gotten more or less what I aimed to get out of it. I’ve exposed you to the truth, whether you want to accept it or not, which is a useful thing to do. And I’ve given you a chance to air your side or poke holes in my argument in case I missed something, I think you’ve had enough of a chance at this point that it’s not really necessary to keep going in case you come out with some damning counterargument all of a sudden.)
Sure. And then he just didn’t know he was removing the prongs from it which he didn’t know were there, and taping over them (with the clearly recently-applied strip of black tape which has no dog hair on it as it would if it had been stuck on even a week before). He just has a sleepwalking problem where he modifies his household appliances coupled with amnesia about their general nature and function as to their primary purpose. After all, we’ve got to assume good faith no matter what kind of self-contradictory horseshit comes out of this mouth, so as long as there is some explanation no matter how tortured and nonsensical, that’s the most likely explanation. Call it Oddham’s Razor.
If the viewer is incapable of critically evaluating what’s there, then sure (and I notice that a lot of Hasan’s defenders do seem to exist in that kind of evidence-free safe space where it is just all competing tones of voice and firm assertions about what obviously happened.) In the world where someone can hold up and critically evaluate evidentiary claims, and see which ones generally make sense and which ones are clear self-serving deflection and bullshit, there is only one real answer to this issue.
I’m not defending pulling the dog by the tail. I’m just saying it’s a separate issue from the specific claim that he shocked the dog. They are separate so it isn’t topical for the shock collar discussion.
The point is that there just isn’t enough evidence for the shock collar claim. Offering an alternative explanation of events doesn’t meet the standard of proof. Especially when the tangible evidence we do have, like eye witness accounts and demonstration of the collar suggest a shock was likely not used.
What? No it isn’t. He’s a piece of shit for pulling the dog by the tail, so there stops being a reason to assume good faith as far as his treatment of some other dog. Same as when his explanation changes or contradicts visible evidence (like the model of collar), there stops being a reason to assume he’s telling the truth about things that are less cut and dried.
Why does this not apply to Hasan’s explanation?
I don’t really care what people aligned with Hasan have to say about it. Especially since, like I said, they lose credibility to me when their explanations contradict one another or the visible evidence. “Tangible evidence” to me is what I can see or a factual argument that starts from first principles.
This is something I’ve noticed MAGA people do, too: They basically outsource their critical thinking to some authority or other, and get uncomfortable with the idea of evaluating factual claims. You’re defining “independent investigation” in this no-true-Scotsman type of way, where anything that supports what you want to believe is “an independent investigation” or an “eye witness account,” but someone holding up the actual model of collar Hasan is using and making a compelling case on the facts of the matter is “an alternative explanation.” And there’s no reason why Hasan’s explanation contradicting those visible facts would impact his credibility going forward.
It seems like you’re actively refusing to evaluate the claims on the merits, instead defaulting back to where Hasan and his supporters are trustworthy even when their explanations change from one day to the next or one supporter to the next, or contradict physical evidence, and anyone who has bad things to say is untrustworthy (I guess simply by reason of having bad things to say about him.)
(I also note that your explanation contradicts Hasan’s. He’s saying the collar is not a shock collar. You’re saying it could be a shock collar, but he just didn’t know it had the shock function. That kind of thing is what directs his backers’ credibility straight into the garbage as far as I’m concerned.)
(I mean, if Hasan’s case was to hold up the collar clearly close to the camera, show all sides of it, and say very specifically “No it is not the ET-300, it is this other model of collar, see they look similar” then that would be a strong counterargument that puts criticism down in that category of “an alternative proposed explanation.” But he’s stayed far, far, far away from anything factual and clear like that, which is pretty notable to me. I mean, at this point even if he did do that there would be no reason to think he didn’t just buy a vibration-only collar in the meantime… what he could easily have done is at any point during the hours of drama that ensued after the initial shock event, he could have walked over to Kaya, grabbed the collar, showed it to the camera holding it close up showing all sides. The whole thing would have been a non issue. To me him refusing to do that when people were saying “SHOW THE COLLAR,” and then when he did it the next day it clearly being a modified shocking-capable collar which he claimed was not shock capable, plus various other circumstantial evidence like pulling the dog’s tail and hiding the remote from a camera that was placed in a position to show it, adds up to exactly what it seems like it adds up to.)
Anyway, I am more or less done with this conversation. You reacted pretty much exactly like I would expect a Hasan stan to react, I was just sort of surprised to find that on Lemmy, I thought it was more of a Reddit thing. Good talking with you, good times.
The standard of proof of shocking vs not-shocking isn’t to prove innocence that it’s impossible to shock the dog, it’s to prove that the shock actually occurred. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If another valid explanation exists and can’t be ruled out (especially when that explanation is even supported by evidence), then it isn’t proven that a shock happened.
I apologize in advance for not responding to every point, but a lot of this discussion has shifted away from evidence and into speculation about people’s motives or behavior. Speculation on how people might react in certain situations or behave can’t be really used as proof.