4 ms·

My exact point is that in these cases it seems like the employer in question announced that they believed the accuser before looking into both sides and the evi

My exact point is that in these cases it seems like the employer in question announced that they believed the accuser before looking into both sides and the evidence. How do you think this does not illustrate that? How is one supposed to come back from your employer making these kind of statements while you are being investigated? ## Edit: @joshuamorton Can't reply to your comment below so doing it here. Honest question: We have three threads here where we engage in discourse, and I want to ask you a question from my experience of it. If you have already made up your mind and are not willing to engage with any evidence that shows that you might be wrong, why do you engage in discourse at all? I see this pattern all over social media and to me it just seems like identity grand standing and a declaration that you believe in the dogma of that identity. Neither helps facilitate a productive discourse.

joshuamorton 9y ago
>How do you think this does not illustrate that? Your evidence for this is solely a statement from the "accused". I'm not saying that they're lying, but that it is in their best interest to say the exact same thing no matter what the truth is. In other words, without any additional context, a person saying "this negative thing is a lie" is exactly what you'd expect them to say, whether or not it was actually a lie. So no, if the only evidence for the employer not "looking into both sides and the evidence" is that the person who got fired claimed that, I don't find that alone at all a reliable claim in the absence of any corroboration.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 9y ago
Replying to your edit: >If you have already made up your mind and are not willing to engage with any evidence that shows that you might be wrong, why do you engage in discourse at all? This is a strong assumption, and one that is untrue. Just because I find your arguments uncompelling does not mean that I find all arguments uncompelling. I've handed out more than a few deltas on /r/changemyview, so I'm not saying this without some basis in reality. It appears that you're making a veiled claim that I'm virtue signalling, and I object to that accusation.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  > Just because I find your arguments uncompelling does not mean that I find all arguments uncompelling. If when asking for proof of where employers declared that they believed the women before inspecting all evidence and hearing both sides some very prominent examples of that does not convince you, then I do not know what will. > It appears that you're making a veiled claim that I'm virtue signalling, and I object to that accusation. I am pretty straightforward and made that direct claim as I feel like I wasted my time, and I tried to understand where you come from or provoke you to think about it. I rarely go to this step and I am not sure calling you out is the best course of action, but due to the denial of this direct evidence as well as other experiences in these threads I feel like this is justified and I think this kind of discourse deserve a rebuttal for what it is. I know no other way to call out these rhetorical tricks than brutal honesty. I might be wrong, I am not in your head.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >employers declared that they believed the women before inspecting all evidence No, you gave examples of employees claiming that about their employers. In a discussion that started with you claiming we shouldn't treat accusations as facts, I would have expected that you could tell the difference.

joshuamorton 9y ago

>How do you think this does not illustrate that? Your evidence for this is solely a statement from the "accused". I'm not saying that they're lying, but that it is in their best interest to say the exact same thing no matter what the truth is. In other words, without any additional context, a person saying "this negative thing is a lie" is exactly what you'd expect them to say, whether or not it was actually a lie. So no, if the only evidence for the employer not "looking into both sides and the evidence" is that the person who got fired claimed that, I don't find that alone at all a reliable claim in the absence of any corroboration.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

joshuamorton 9y ago

Replying to your edit: >If you have already made up your mind and are not willing to engage with any evidence that shows that you might be wrong, why do you engage in discourse at all? This is a strong assumption, and one that is untrue. Just because I find your arguments uncompelling does not mean that I find all arguments uncompelling. I've handed out more than a few deltas on /r/changemyview, so I'm not saying this without some basis in reality. It appears that you're making a veiled claim that I'm virtue signalling, and I object to that accusation.

asabjorn 9y ago
> Just because I find your arguments uncompelling does not mean that I find all arguments uncompelling. If when asking for proof of where employers declared that they believed the women before inspecting all evidence and hearing both sides some very prominent examples of that does not convince you, then I do not know what will. > It appears that you're making a veiled claim that I'm virtue signalling, and I object to that accusation. I am pretty straightforward and made that direct claim as I feel like I wasted my time, and I tried to understand where you come from or provoke you to think about it. I rarely go to this step and I am not sure calling you out is the best course of action, but due to the denial of this direct evidence as well as other experiences in these threads I feel like this is justified and I think this kind of discourse deserve a rebuttal for what it is. I know no other way to call out these rhetorical tricks than brutal honesty. I might be wrong, I am not in your head.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >employers declared that they believed the women before inspecting all evidence No, you gave examples of employees claiming that about their employers. In a discussion that started with you claiming we shouldn't treat accusations as facts, I would have expected that you could tell the difference.