Hobthrob

No problem:

First of; here’s where I primarily source my definitions from, just so you can read along. But you can find similar wording elsewhere.

Now, quoting just your latest reply where you deny using ad hominems-

“dumb-dumb,” “dumb idiot liar,” “babybrain,” “stupid dumbass fucking bullshit lies,” “only fucking morons would believe…”

These are all “Abusive ad hominem / name-calling” because they target my intelligence, character and credibility rather than my claims.

“Let me know when you have a fourth … piece of evidence so I can take your argument seriously”; “you keep trying to high road lies”

Here you’re “Poisoning The Well” by trying to discredit any future claims or arguments I might bring.

“hope you get that Israel money or whatever you’re in this for”; “like a foreign agent”

Here you’re applying a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem” by bringing in something irrelevant to the discussion, and sprinkling it with some “Bare Assertion Fallacy” given that you’ve given no basis for assuming that I’m allied with Israel or any other foreign power.

regurgitate … from your master”; “Israel money”; “foreign agent”

Here you’re imploying the “Guilt by Association / Bias And Hominem” fallacy by discredit anything I say based on the same previous “Bare Assertion Fallacy”.

You are doing a fallacy where you think my calling you a dumb idiot liar somehow negates all the points…”

Here you’re abusing the “Tu Quoque / Appeal To Hypocrisy” fallacy by trying to claim that I do not understand the fallacies I mentioned, rather than engage with the actual points. It’s also fallacious because my appeal to toning down the personal attacks on your comments came after I responded to your actual points.

You also employed a few other non-ad hominem fallacies: a Straw man, an Appeal to Ridicule, A Red Herring / Irrelevant Conclusion as well as general Bullying / Intimidation (which is rhetorical and not strictly logical).

And that was just in this last message.

To clarify the first point:

The representative from the company did say the prongs seemed to have been improperly removed, and that the hole left behind by that seemed to have been covered in black tape, likely to protect the dog from the uneven edges that would have left behind. He also said he found that strange as they sell a replacement part for that purpose, which hadn’t been installed.

And that indicated, to me, that once the shocking incident gained traction, Hasan scrambled to quickly put the collar in front of the audience but without the prongs. He knows people have been able to see the collar for months and would potentially recognize if he changed it, so he thought he could cover up the modification and claim it never had the shock prongs.

But it bring up questions to me:

Why would he have to improperly remove the prongs if not to hurry to show it to his audience without them?

If he had plenty of time why wouldn’t he have just gotten a new one instead of modifying the old one? And if time wasn’t an issue (because he had to quickly try to avert suspicion) why didn’t he get and install the replacement part meant to have it safe for Kaya, post prong-removal?

I would say everything I’ve laid out is internally consistent: Kaya was wearing a shock collar, whether he shocked her or not in the famous clip is not relevant to my claims, but he got a lot of heat and attention to Kaya’s collar from it, and felt he had to prove it wasn’t a shock collar, and of course he’d know he’d have to do it quickly otherwise it would look suspicious. So he quickly modified it and taped over the now rough edges, either to hide the modification or to protect Kaya, or both.

Add to that that he changed his story, starting by vehemently claiming it wasn’t a shock collar, and then, once some people found the model of it, changing that to it being a shock collar that could no longer shock.

That’s internally consistent to me. Now, the only actual thing we know is the model of the shock collar and that it was modified, that the collar was way too tight and that Hasan changed his story when the model of the collar was identified.

Everything else is speculation, which is why I don’t lead with that, but everything to the contrary is equal speculation and I just find that it has way less purchase with the above facts in mind.

On another note: I don’t know why you’re so quick to go ad hominem? I’m not attacking you or your character, and I’m engaging with you earnestly, taking in your points and responding to them reasonably.

How is someone supposed to respect your points if you make yourself so hard to respect?

Obviously I’d disagree. Between the two of us I would argue that I’m the only one who has brought even the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to support one of my claims.

Correct me if I’m misremembering; but so far you only brought a single link that talks about Dan Saltman, which was entirely unrelated to my post or claims, which is what you’ve been aiming to refute.

Not saying I’m drowning you in sources, but by my count 1 does beat 0 by a tiny bit.

I would be very surprised. Can you give me any examples? I would not know where to start with that.

Hitchen’s Razor.

A collar with vibration and shock is a shock collar. A collar without shock but is a vibration collar.

The representative from the producer of the collar, that image and video evidence match, indicated that the prongs had been improperly removed and the opening taped over, instead of using a padded replacement cover for the underside, which they also sell. Indicating a rush job to hide the shock prongs.

Hasan has also had a guest who commented on the collar being very tight (“can’t even fit one finger” was the quote), which would make sense for using a poorly fitted shock collar, which this one would be indeed.

So my claim is that Hasan used a poorly fitting shock collar. Maybe because he bought the wrong one or because he used one he already had, and he had to over tighten it to get it to somewhat work. And that he used a shock collar on his dog.

Hasan also changed his story several times as well. He started by claiming it wasn’t a shock collar, to them later claiming that it was a shock collar but that he had the prongs removed. I believe he changed it further, but those are the most relevant I believe.

If you bring sources all the time, why won’t you adhere to your own regular standard now?

Why do I have to follow an example you won’t set for me?

That’s quite the angry rant. I’ll try to filter out the personal attacks and focus on the substance.

You can claim that the collar would be a bad fit for Kaya and I’d agree, but the images taken from Hasan’s own streams make it hard to claim that it isn’t the Educator RX 090.

You could claim he might be better served with a vibration collar, which is what Hasan changed his story to, but this one is shock capable, and there would be no reason to buy a shock capable collar unless you intend to use the shock capability.

But my claim is that he used a shock collar on his dog, not that he used one that was a good fit for shocking his dog. That’s moving the goalpost, if not an outright straw man.

I don’t recall hearing a loud beep when it went off, but feel free to bring evidence to the contrary and I can use your standard of evidence to dig further.

You can go on a tirade about evidence but it doesn’t get much more concrete than stills or clips from Hasan Piker’s own streams.

And to clarify: I do not find animal abuse minor, and I certainly think shock collars are animal abuse. But that’s also trying to move the goalpost, once again.

I’m asking you to debunk anything I say, but you refuse and rely on fallacies and bad faith arguments.

I don’t care what the audience thinks.

Writing is fast, research is slow.

If I’m lying then prove it.

If you want a different standard than what it’s currently set you can lead by example, rather than with ad hominems.

Go ahead and prove that.

No one should. That’s why I wrote that they shouldn’t believe me but do their own research in addition.

I don’t know who you think you’re arguing with here if you missed that.

Whether he did or did not spread a rumour is entirely irrelevant, because nothing I presented relied on any rumours from anywhere. The evidence was taken from Hasan Piker’s videos and I could verify that.

So that is irrelevant.

There’s literal pictures take from Hasan’s own stream, and e-mail conversation with a company representive that recognizes the product. I chased down the image and found it to be verifiable. While I cannot very a private email I could verify the company and the product and match it to the image.

I don’t care where the evidence is, I care that it is verifiable in so far as it can be, and I could verify the majority of that blog post, which is more than you’ve been able to give me.

Again, no AI used in any of my work, but feel free to keep riding that ad hominem as far as it’ll take you.

So you claim.

And it would take much longer to go back and re-find my weeks and months old sources, I don’t see what makes so little sense about that. And that is not the standard of communication around here, which is the same standard you’re adhering to.

This is the exact game that DGG orbiters play and I wasn’t born yesterday.

What game do they play? I don’t know, but it would seem good if I could recognize it, so feel free to elaborate.

Currently I don’t see how they are relevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t believe I’ve ever commented on anything relevant to Destiny, DGG, Dan Saltman or anything related to that. They’ve come up during my own research into Hasan Piker, but my research has been isolated to him and his behaviour, so I’ve not really chased down any of these side-tracks. It seemed entirely irrelevant to what Hasan Piker does.

I told you I’m not going to take you seriously anymore, it’s pointless when you’re playing dumb.

I am not playing dumb - I have been upfront with what I do and do not know about.

Trying to claim you have no idea what Hasan’s politics are while you are talking about Hasan in a political community is asinine.

On a non-politics related post, related to Hasan Piker’s non-political lawsuit, in a reply-chain that started with someone asking about Hasan Piker, not his politics. And I’ve admitted to not having dug enough into his political beliefs to comment directly on it, for better or for worse. That’s being forthcoming with the limits of my knowledge. I shouldn’t need to be an expert on a person’s political beliefs to comment on the non-political aspects of their life. That would be an unreasonable standard for participation and not one broadly supported by how the Fediverse (or any other social media) works.

Claiming that you couldn’t find any link between Destiny and Hasan is similarly asinine.

I didn’t claim that. I claimed that link was irrelevant to anything I was talking about.

Having 0 sources for any of the bullshit you’re claiming is asinine.

I bring sources when someone asks and engages with the substance of what I actually write. When are you brining your sources, or engaging with what the words and points I am actually writing and making?

Claiming that it’s just too hard to source your claims is also asinine.

Are you going to keep riding that strawman? That’s not what I said. I said it is too time-consuming and that it is also a different standard than the general standard of the place of conversation. Hence I only bring sources when it seems worthwhile to me. The quality of your engagement has not met my subjective threshold for using my limited time on re-finding my sources from weeks and moths ago That’s all.

You gave the game away.

I am still unsure what game it is you think I am playing. I guess you think I am connected to Destiny or Dan Saltman? Feel free to find any modicum of evidence, other than, what? vibes? I don’t know much about them; I haven’t researched them; I don’t engage with them or their community/communities(? given that there’s several people); and I don’t spend a lot of time watching streamers at all, unless I am looking into something very specific and then I am focused on that specific thing, not all the rest of the noise.

I wasn’t expecting an actual debate, but since you’ve accused me of being bad faith: You’re making huge leaps and assumptions of me based on nothing (non sequitur fallacy); You’re not engaging with the substance of anything I write (Ignoratio elenchi fallacy with a sprinking of a strawman or two); while simultaneously trying to dismiss me based on things like misspelling a name, and trying to paint my attempt at intellectual honestly about the limits of my knowledge of irrelevant subjects as as proof of bad faith (a few different ad hominems, including irrelevant ad hominem fallacy) Based on this I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

It’s fine if you want to back away from the discussion. At first I though that perhaps your passion/hostility on the subject was related to the veracity of any of the points in my posts, but it seems to me that you are Marge Simpsons and he’s your potato, and you just find him neat - no further thought needed.

But yes, I agree that both of our time would be wasted if that’s all you’ll do with it.

Yep. Feel free to criticize the actual approach the person took or try to disprove it though. I don’t really care where things come from, if the method is good.

Yes, politics community, but would you can slander political in nature, or lawsuits? Can they overlap; sure but do they necessarily?

Nothing I wrote was AI. Painstakingly hand-typed. I’m generally not a fan of AI as I think it gets too much wrong too often - and they really will insist on things that are just factually wrong. So nope, none of that. I’m saying that I’m not well-versed enough in his politics to argue what he thinks, politically, so i won’t. That’s also why I tend to just say what he says his political beliefs are, and only highlight facts that might contradict his own statements where I find them. I’d say that’s pretty intellectually honest. I’m sure citing sources would have been better.

It’s fine if you find out weird. I’m sure I am.

It’s true that there’s no proof in my ordinary comment, hence why I tried to add some here and there when someone engaged with the substance of anything I wrote. You can go through my comments if you want and see, it’s limited for now but I’ll add more as soon as I can.

I’m not saying it’s hard at all, I’m saying it’s time-consuming. I’m fine with hard but I have little time available to dig through and redo research from weeks and months ago, so I’ll only do that if it’s worth the time and I feel someone is actually intellectual engaging with the subject. This isn’t my job and I don’t really get a whole lot out of this, so I try to keep the actual time investment low, and focus on the parts that are worthwhile. Generally I’ll try to mirror the level of investment I’m given.

Someone asked questions about someone I happen to have written about before, and copying that message was a low time investment.

I don’t believe I said there was no link between Dan Saltman, Destiny and Hasan, just that neither of those two had anything to do with the evidence I’ve seen, nor do I care about them. The evidence I’ve presented (in another comment mind you, so if you want it here you’ll have to wait until I have time) does not rely on them or anything they’ve brought forth. So I see no link to anything I have written about and I’m being consistent with that.

Feel free to quote me if I wrote anything to the contrary, and we can examine that, my fundamental position is unchanged.

Sorry for the slightly disjointed formatting, it’s a bit too time-consuming to do that better on a phone, I find.

I mean, I already told you about my mild dyslexia, so I’m not sure why you’re fishing for a deeper meaning there. I literally misplaced 2 letters of two very similar sounding and spelled names - that’s it.

I also read the write up you linked on him, so it’s not like I confused his person with Sam Altman.

It really feels like you’re just trying to discredit and dismiss me wholesale based on anything. Well, anything except any evidence or fully-formed argument.

I don’t really care about whatever rumours were spread, I saw Hasan’s own videos, I heard him change his story and I saw the modified collar he showed, and I linked an evidence-based little investigation based on Hasan’s own videos in another comment. There’re no logical leaps or excuses involved or needed, and whatever rumours Saltman spread has nothing to do with the evidence I saw from Hasan’s own stream.