• rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dude, Hermoso herself said it was non consensual. How can you justify suing HER since it happened to HER. Do you know what she was thinking?

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      He said it was.

      She said it wasn’t.

      Who do we believe, and based on what?

    • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.

      Certainly he can he an ‘‘POS’’ but I don’t know. I don’t know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can see that he kissed her on the lips and she said she didn’t want or consent to that. What more evidence do you need? Do you think she is lying?

        • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          43
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.

          I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.

          Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you don’t want any more evidence. So you either believe her or you think she’s a liar. Which is it?

              • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, you believe the abuser caught in video but you’re too much of a coward to admit it outright.

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No. You didn’t. You said “I’m not saying she’s lying”. That’s not the same.

                Do you believe her statements or do you think she’s lying?

                • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  29
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.

                  Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?

                  I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.

                  My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.

                  So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.

                  I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.

                  • rusticus@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    15
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I’m disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.

            This is absolutely true when dealing with tribalists. You’re either with them or against them; there is no in-between.

            Just look at everyone getting mad at you for even suggesting we don’t know all the facts. Sad, but that’s what this generation has become. Rabid fools desperate to fit in with other rabid fools.

            • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If they’re mad about an opinion over the internet, well that’s on them. Nowadays it’s pretty much follow the hype train and pretending to know everything.

              They can downvote me to oblivion, that’s fine. It’s internet point which does not mean anything at all and especially here on Lemmy. I can still do everything. So it matters even less.

              Majority doesn’t even have a good argument point, if I remember well, there were only one or two people who had. The rest didn’t and went direct into personal matters, which isn’t a good thing for an argument.

              I quite much forgot about this thread/ argument until, I saw your comment.

        • osarusan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

          His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

          Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment

            Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

            The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

            • osarusan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

              Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.

              • DCLXVI@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just that the “arguments” and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.

                • osarusan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t really know what that means… It’s just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?

                  • DCLXVI@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy’s doing the same so maybe it’s just typical conversation on here.