horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

[sadhatter]

Get out of here with that ****. No logical person is going to fall for that.

People who are operating critically wait for evidence to find out if something is real or not. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

What we had here at the start of this thread were people who claimed for a fact the incident was not real. And several of them were people who only do that in threads involving LGBT and/or POC.

A skeptic never believes anything for a fact until very specific solid evidence is acquired.

So, nice try at spinning the opposite of what actually happened during the first page of this thread.

Even if the incident turns out to be fake the people who claimed that it was definitely fake are, in fact, still wrong for doing so. No "mea culpas" will ever redeem that evil.

You cannot call a coin "heads, I know for a fact it is heads" in the air and then when the coin lands assume that people are going to believe that you really did have some super secret detective power. No, a logical person will think you likely are either just full of it or have an ulterior motive. And if the logical thinker notices that you always do it when it suits racism or bigotry then it logically follows that you are trying to align reality to suit your evils.

From my very first post:

Heads I win tails you lose. Great way to foster debate.

"You may have been right, BUT YOU ARE RACIST, so it doesn't count." Is also another way your past comes off.

Just admit defeat, have a little honor about the situation and maybe learn.

 

[applecorped]

I wonder if the person who started the OP would ask to have the title changed now that everyone knows there was no horrifying attack


I highly doubt it

 

[sadhatter]

Thank you. You know for certain no attack occurred.Well done. Prove it.

Did you actually just ask him to prove a negative, on a skeptics board?

Let that sink in, and please no special pleading as to why this situation is the one appropriate time to ask someone to prove a negative.

 

[sadhatter]

I wonder if the person who started the OP would ask to have the title changed now that everyone knows there was no horrifying attack


I highly doubt it

That's racist. You can't prove it hasn't happened.

Literally going idea for the guys defenders atm.

 

[applecorped]

Came across this book on Amazon:

Smollett's hoax: Don Quixote in English (Stanford studies in language and literature)

 

[Cavemonster]

Did you actually just ask him to prove a negative, on a skeptics board?

Let that sink in, and please no special pleading as to why this situation is the one appropriate time to ask someone to prove a negative.

Lots of negatives can be easily proven. That's pretty much what falsifying a hypothesis IS.

I suppose we could nitpick about the word PROVE and absolute logical certainty, but that would be a pretty selective use of that standard.

We routinely see valid arguments for "Not X".

For instance. If there was 4K 100% video coverage a of every millisecond of Smollett's walk from the Subway to his home and no attack was shown, then we could reasonably conclude that no attack occurred on that walk.

What you can't prove are certain types of universal negatives within a certain practical scale. I can't absolutely prove there are no purple swans because I can't practically say I have looked everywhere a swan could possibly be.

However to all reasonable standards I can prove that there are no purple swans in my pockets.

 

[Marcus]

Get out of here with that ****. No logical person is going to fall for that.

People who are operating critically wait for evidence to find out if something is real or not. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

What we had here at the start of this thread were people who claimed for a fact the incident was not real. And several of them were people who only do that in threads involving LGBT and/or POC.

A skeptic never believes anything for a fact until very specific solid evidence is acquired.

So, nice try at spinning the opposite of what actually happened during the first page of this thread.

Even if the incident turns out to be fake the people who claimed that it was definitely fake are, in fact, still wrong for doing so. No "mea culpas" will ever redeem that evil.

You cannot call a coin "heads, I know for a fact it is heads" in the air and then when the coin lands assume that people are going to believe that you really did have some super secret detective power. No, a logical person will think you likely are either just full of it or have an ulterior motive. And if the logical thinker notices that you always do it when it suits racism or bigotry then it logically follows that you are trying to align reality to suit your evils.

From my very first post:

I guess that's a no then. No need for me to elaborate further, the people responding to your post have said it well.

 

[sadhatter]

Lots of negatives can be easily proven. That's pretty much what falsifying a hypothesis IS.

I suppose we could nitpick about the word PROVE and absolute logical certainty, but that would be a pretty selective use of that standard.

We routinely see valid arguments for "Not X".

For instance. If there was 4K 100% video coverage a of every millisecond of Smollett's walk from the Subway to his home and no attack was shown, then we could reasonably conclude that no attack occurred on that walk.

What you can't prove are certain types of universal negatives within a certain practical scale. I can't absolutely prove there are no purple swans because I can't practically say I have looked everywhere a swan could possibly be.

However to all reasonable standards I can prove that there are no purple swans in my pockets.

That is true. ... if one completely ignores the concept of the null hypothesis, and in legal terms innocence until guilt is proven.

But thanks for the exact special pleading I called out.

Feel free to prove yourself right by proving I'm not wearing a purple shirt.

 

[sadhatter]

I guess that's a no then. No need for me to elaborate further, the people responding to your post have said it well.

The easy reply is.

You can't call a fair coin toss, if I notice someone is using a rigged coin on the other hand, it's pretty easy to call it 10 times or of 10.

Instead of calling us ******** for knowing it was a trick coin, maybe ask us how we knew and take note.

 

[Cavemonster]

That is true. ... if one completely ignores the concept of the null hypothesis, and in legal terms innocence until guilt is proven.

But thanks for the exact special pleading I called out.

Feel free to prove yourself right by proving I'm not wearing a purple shirt.

As I said, many negatives are impractical to prove given physical limits. They are not logically impossible.

You also seem to be completely unaware of the meaning of special pleading because I made a very general case for negatives.

 

[Cavemonster]

That is true. ... if one completely ignores the concept of the null hypothesis, and in legal terms innocence until guilt is proven.

But thanks for the exact special pleading I called out.

Feel free to prove yourself right by proving I'm not wearing a purple shirt.

Also, just for the folks playing along at home, the fact that I can't prove you're not wearing a purple shirt has little to do with the fact that its a negative. I would have the same amount of trouble proving you ARE wearing a purple shirt. The issue there is practical access to the relevant evidence, not the negativity of the claim.

 

[William Parcher]

One popular theory is that Smollett actually was the victim of assault or physical altercation but that it wasn't what he said it was.

I have a question for those who hold this theory or those who understand this theory.

Where do the noose and the bleach come from? Does the actual attacker put the noose and bleach, or are those props that were used by Smollett after the actual attack?

For example, some have said it may have been a street drug deal gone wrong. Smollett has his Subway sandwich and now he wants some weed. Sees a guy and tries to buy a bag. But something goes wrong and the guy smacks Smollett and he falls down. Does the guy now place a noose and bleach on Smollett? Or, does Smollett walk away and go buy some clothesline and bleach to serve as hoax props?

I'm confused about when and how the rope and bleach enter the scene when Smollett decides to convert an unrelated assault into a MAGA assault.

 

[baron]

One popular theory is that Smollett actually was the victim of assault or physical altercation but that it wasn't what he said it was.

I have a question for those who hold this theory or those who understand this theory.

Where do the noose and the bleach come from? Does the actual attacker put the noose and bleach, or are those props that were used by Smollett after the actual attack?

...

I'm confused about when and how the rope and bleach enter the scene when Smollett decides to convert an unrelated assault into a MAGA assault.

The suggestion I made early on is that he met up with someone, went back 'to their place', and got into an argument that resulted in a fracas. For reasons of his own he took the bleach and the cord (both items commonly found in kitchens) in order to fabricate a racist attack and that way account for his injury.

 

[William Parcher]

The suggestion I made early on is that he met up with someone, went back 'to their place', and got into an argument that resulted in a fracas.

But we are told that there are only 60 seconds of "missing video time". That isn't long enough for him to have a "hook-up", then a fracas, and then acquire the rope and bleach.

For reasons of his own he took the bleach and the cord (both items commonly found in kitchens) in order to fabricate a racist attack and that way account for his injury.

What do you mean by "took" the bleach and cord? Took from where-to-where and at what time?

 

[baron]

But we are told that there are only 60 seconds of "missing video time". That isn't long enough for him to have a "hook-up", then a fracas, and then acquire the rope and bleach.

I've seen that said but I'm not sure where it came from. I don't think it's true. If it is, we are asked to believe that the police have 29 minutes of unbroken coverage of Smollett walking 400 yards from Subway to his mate's house. That doesn't make sense.

What do you mean by "took" the bleach and cord?

He reached out with his hands and took them.

Took from where-to-where and at what time?

From the kitchen of the apartment. When he was in it.

 

[William Parcher]

He reached out with his hands and took them.

From the kitchen of the apartment. When he was in it.

So are you suggesting that Smollett stole the rope and bleach from the kitchen of some "hook-up guy" after having a fracas with Hook-Up Guy?

 

[theprestige]

One popular theory is that Smollett actually was the victim of assault or physical altercation but that it wasn't what he said it was.

I have a question for those who hold this theory or those who understand this theory.

Where do the noose and the bleach come from? Does the actual attacker put the noose and bleach, or are those props that were used by Smollett after the actual attack?

First, what bleach? Some reports say that Smollett said something about a liquid, and that somebody said something about smelling something that may have smelled like bleach. Between early reports being garbled, and people filling in gaps with supposition, I think the bleach probably didn't happen at all. File it away with MikeG's "broken rib".

 

[baron]

So are you suggesting that Smollett stole the rope and bleach from the kitchen of some "hook-up guy" after having a fracas with Hook-Up Guy?

If the rope and bleach exist then that would be one way he could have got hold of them, yes.

 

[Thermal]

If the rope and bleach exist then that would be one way he could have got hold of them, yes.

Does it really matter, though? Once it is determined that he was lying about the major points, isn't it trivial in what manner he may have set his stage?

I'm still going with slipped and fell in the bathtub or whatever, which would account for the injuries, and a spur of the moment 'great idea' for publicity.

 

[Meadmaker]

First, what bleach? Some reports say that Smollett said something about a liquid, and that somebody said something about smelling something that may have smelled like bleach. Between early reports being garbled, and people filling in gaps with supposition, I think the bleach probably didn't happen at all. File it away with MikeG's "broken rib".

I was one of the people who jumped on the "bleach" thing. It really puzzled me. And then, it turns out, it was at best speculative. Oops.