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.
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.
Completely agree. I asked you for what that valid explanation was, and you said that it’s possible that the collar had no shock function. I pointed out that it’s been abundantly proven that the model of shock collar he showed does have a shock function, and then you shifted to claiming that it’s possible that he just didn’t know it had a shock function. So in other words, an inconsistent and shifting explanation which is totally fantastical, questing about in the search for some kind of hare-brained logic which exonerates Hasan even if it makes no sense. Which is roughly what I expected lol. I have seen this type of logic before from other Hasan stans. I do commend you for not falling back on claiming that I am the brainwashed one because I obviously come from LSF or I’m a Destiny watcher or whatevernot.
a lot of this discussion has shifted away from evidence and into speculation about people’s motives or behavior
On your side, yes. After I showed you videos of the exact model of collar, images illustrating in detail how Hasan doctored it, and video of him behaving abusively towards dogs in a way that isn’t up for debate, you shifted away from the factual landscape and said you would “not respond to every point.” Yes, I think tactically that’s a good idea on your part, if you’re trying to cling to this world model where Hasan is not a dog abuser who lies about it. That’s pretty much all you can fall back on I think.
When it comes to explaining why someone acted one way, the explanations I gave weren’t mean to be a complete list. I just picked 3 things off the top of my head as an alternative explanation of events. It isn’t like the explanations I gave are shifting, since I’m not proposing one as the definitive recount of what happened. But rather I’m saying to prove the shock claim, all other reasonable explanations have to be ruled out.
And there are many, including ones which reflect poorly on Hasan without proving he shocked the dog. For example he could have not shocked his dog AND been dishonest about knowing the collar’s shocking capability. The key idea is that there isn’t enough verified evidence to pick the shock-collar theory over the many other explanations including ones I’m not even aware of.
Sure. So what is the innocent explanation for what happened (in particular the fresh tape over the back of the unit) that doesn’t contradict any kind of visible evidence, and doesn’t require some kind of moon-logic like Hasan being unaware that his shock collar has prongs and the remote has buttons on it that shock the dog? What would be the reason for him having her wear the collar regularly without wanting to shock her with it, and then lying about what kind of collar it is?
I mean you’ve had a chance to see Hasan’s explanation. You don’t have to speculate wildly about what might have happened or claim that it might be some totally new and different explanation you’re totally unaware of (or… you kind of do actually, if you want to try to defend him, since his attempt to explain very notably didn’t clarify key information like what model of collar he’s claiming it was or what features the remote has…)
I don’t have one innocent explanation nor can I come up with all possible explanations. The explanations I gave so far were just illustrations of potential explanations, some of them innocent, some not.
The point I’m trying to make is speculation about why someone did something isn’t proof of guilt. Evidence is proof, and until there is evidence everything else is just interpretation.
Okay, good to know you can’t come up with even one potential innocent explanation. You have offered two which are clearly garbage, and then retreated into this landscape where anything’s possible and nothing matters, just because in a vague sense lots of explanations might be possible.
Probably a good decision tactically. You may have a feeling that if you attempt to offer another innocent explanation it may be shown to contradict some kind of other clear evidence, and you may be right.
(Also, again, it’s relevant that Hasan is already on camera abusing other dogs, and that his attempt at an innocent explanation is one of those explanations that can’t possibly be true. It is legitimately confusing to me why those things are not important to you. Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug, I guess.)
Anyway I am done now. I was just curious if you had anything better to offer.
It’s not tactical, it’s just how guilt is generally determined. Speculative testimony (like “I think he did it for this reason”) is generally inadmissible in court. Speculation about motives isn’t evidence. Offering my own speculation about motives wouldn’t count as proof either, so it doesn’t make sense for me to do that.
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.
Completely agree. I asked you for what that valid explanation was, and you said that it’s possible that the collar had no shock function. I pointed out that it’s been abundantly proven that the model of shock collar he showed does have a shock function, and then you shifted to claiming that it’s possible that he just didn’t know it had a shock function. So in other words, an inconsistent and shifting explanation which is totally fantastical, questing about in the search for some kind of hare-brained logic which exonerates Hasan even if it makes no sense. Which is roughly what I expected lol. I have seen this type of logic before from other Hasan stans. I do commend you for not falling back on claiming that I am the brainwashed one because I obviously come from LSF or I’m a Destiny watcher or whatevernot.
On your side, yes. After I showed you videos of the exact model of collar, images illustrating in detail how Hasan doctored it, and video of him behaving abusively towards dogs in a way that isn’t up for debate, you shifted away from the factual landscape and said you would “not respond to every point.” Yes, I think tactically that’s a good idea on your part, if you’re trying to cling to this world model where Hasan is not a dog abuser who lies about it. That’s pretty much all you can fall back on I think.
When it comes to explaining why someone acted one way, the explanations I gave weren’t mean to be a complete list. I just picked 3 things off the top of my head as an alternative explanation of events. It isn’t like the explanations I gave are shifting, since I’m not proposing one as the definitive recount of what happened. But rather I’m saying to prove the shock claim, all other reasonable explanations have to be ruled out.
And there are many, including ones which reflect poorly on Hasan without proving he shocked the dog. For example he could have not shocked his dog AND been dishonest about knowing the collar’s shocking capability. The key idea is that there isn’t enough verified evidence to pick the shock-collar theory over the many other explanations including ones I’m not even aware of.
Sure. So what is the innocent explanation for what happened (in particular the fresh tape over the back of the unit) that doesn’t contradict any kind of visible evidence, and doesn’t require some kind of moon-logic like Hasan being unaware that his shock collar has prongs and the remote has buttons on it that shock the dog? What would be the reason for him having her wear the collar regularly without wanting to shock her with it, and then lying about what kind of collar it is?
I mean you’ve had a chance to see Hasan’s explanation. You don’t have to speculate wildly about what might have happened or claim that it might be some totally new and different explanation you’re totally unaware of (or… you kind of do actually, if you want to try to defend him, since his attempt to explain very notably didn’t clarify key information like what model of collar he’s claiming it was or what features the remote has…)
I don’t have one innocent explanation nor can I come up with all possible explanations. The explanations I gave so far were just illustrations of potential explanations, some of them innocent, some not.
The point I’m trying to make is speculation about why someone did something isn’t proof of guilt. Evidence is proof, and until there is evidence everything else is just interpretation.
Okay, good to know you can’t come up with even one potential innocent explanation. You have offered two which are clearly garbage, and then retreated into this landscape where anything’s possible and nothing matters, just because in a vague sense lots of explanations might be possible.
Probably a good decision tactically. You may have a feeling that if you attempt to offer another innocent explanation it may be shown to contradict some kind of other clear evidence, and you may be right.
(Also, again, it’s relevant that Hasan is already on camera abusing other dogs, and that his attempt at an innocent explanation is one of those explanations that can’t possibly be true. It is legitimately confusing to me why those things are not important to you. Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug, I guess.)
Anyway I am done now. I was just curious if you had anything better to offer.
It’s not tactical, it’s just how guilt is generally determined. Speculative testimony (like “I think he did it for this reason”) is generally inadmissible in court. Speculation about motives isn’t evidence. Offering my own speculation about motives wouldn’t count as proof either, so it doesn’t make sense for me to do that.
Absolutely correct. If I see anyone doing that, I’ll be sure to yell at them for you.