3 ms·

How can anyone "prove that no rape occurred"? It's impossible to prove a negative. All we can do is notice that no rape seems to have happened at that fraternit

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

How can anyone "prove that no rape occurred"? It's impossible to prove a negative. All we can do is notice that no rape seems to have happened at that fraternity, none of the alleged victim's statements can be backed up with evidence or testimony, and that the claimed rapist does not exist, and make a judgement call from there.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
> How can anyone "prove that no rape occurred"? It's impossible to prove a negative. You find evidence that contradicts the story in its entirity. For example, if she claimed to have been raped on a night that there was evidence she was in a different country, that would be proof. > No rape seems to have happened You have no strong evidence that suggests that no rape happened. There's also no strong evidence that a rape did happen. Somehow out of that, you believe a rape didn't happen, which is illogical and cruel.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > You have no strong evidence that suggests that no rape happened. The alleged rapist not existing isn't strong evidence suggesting that it didn't happen? > There's also no strong evidence that a rape did happen. Somehow out of that, you believe a rape didn't happen, Wait, what? Even if there's no strong evidence that a rape did happen I should just believe it happened anyway? That's a fascinating approach. What other things should I believe even if there's no strong evidence for them? For example, what if somebody claimed you committed assault, but there was no evidence? > which is illogical and cruel. I suspect you wouldn't be resorting to crude appeals to emotion and playing to the cheap seats with rhetoric if you had a real argument to make here.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    My understanding is that in the US, it is not really possible to prove that a person doesn't exist. People move from state to state, they change names. It's different in European welfare states which are big brother societies: you can actually get a reliable census by saying things like "select count(id) from population where alive is true;" But this is different from proving a certain name didn't appear among the students of a particular university/class, etc; we do know the Rolling Stone story was a hoax.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    > The alleged rapist not existing isn't strong evidence suggesting that it didn't happen? No, that's evidence that if there was an assailant, she doesn't know him. > Even if there's no strong evidence that a rape did happen I should just believe it happened anyway? You misunderstand my position. I am just asserting that we don't know whether a rape happened. I do not believe it happened, nor do I believe that it didn't. I am certain that I cannot know. >> illogical and cruel > I suspect you wouldn't be resorting to crude appeals to emotion and playing to the cheap seats with rhetoric if you had a real argument to make here. What? I am doing nothing of the sort. I am making very specific claims: 1) that based on principles of logic, you can't infer from the evidence that no rape occurred, and 2) to do so is cruel to the alleged victim, who may just be a rape victim who lied about the details. There's nothing emotional or cheap about that argument. You can disagree with me on the facts or the analysis, but at least engage what I'm saying in good faith. I'm extending you that courtesy.

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

erikpukinskis 10y ago

> How can anyone "prove that no rape occurred"? It's impossible to prove a negative. You find evidence that contradicts the story in its entirity. For example, if she claimed to have been raped on a night that there was evidence she was in a different country, that would be proof. > No rape seems to have happened You have no strong evidence that suggests that no rape happened. There's also no strong evidence that a rape did happen. Somehow out of that, you believe a rape didn't happen, which is illogical and cruel.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
> You have no strong evidence that suggests that no rape happened. The alleged rapist not existing isn't strong evidence suggesting that it didn't happen? > There's also no strong evidence that a rape did happen. Somehow out of that, you believe a rape didn't happen, Wait, what? Even if there's no strong evidence that a rape did happen I should just believe it happened anyway? That's a fascinating approach. What other things should I believe even if there's no strong evidence for them? For example, what if somebody claimed you committed assault, but there was no evidence? > which is illogical and cruel. I suspect you wouldn't be resorting to crude appeals to emotion and playing to the cheap seats with rhetoric if you had a real argument to make here.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  My understanding is that in the US, it is not really possible to prove that a person doesn't exist. People move from state to state, they change names. It's different in European welfare states which are big brother societies: you can actually get a reliable census by saying things like "select count(id) from population where alive is true;" But this is different from proving a certain name didn't appear among the students of a particular university/class, etc; we do know the Rolling Stone story was a hoax.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > The alleged rapist not existing isn't strong evidence suggesting that it didn't happen? No, that's evidence that if there was an assailant, she doesn't know him. > Even if there's no strong evidence that a rape did happen I should just believe it happened anyway? You misunderstand my position. I am just asserting that we don't know whether a rape happened. I do not believe it happened, nor do I believe that it didn't. I am certain that I cannot know. >> illogical and cruel > I suspect you wouldn't be resorting to crude appeals to emotion and playing to the cheap seats with rhetoric if you had a real argument to make here. What? I am doing nothing of the sort. I am making very specific claims: 1) that based on principles of logic, you can't infer from the evidence that no rape occurred, and 2) to do so is cruel to the alleged victim, who may just be a rape victim who lied about the details. There's nothing emotional or cheap about that argument. You can disagree with me on the facts or the analysis, but at least engage what I'm saying in good faith. I'm extending you that courtesy.