Progressive Twitch streamer Hasan Piker filed a defamation lawsuit against conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings on Tuesday, accusing him of falsely claiming Piker advocated for lynching Blac…
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?
That’s not what an ad hominem is, dumb-dumb, take a Latin or Logic class. Please quote to me where you think I did an ad hominem and then provide a definition for it so I can laugh in your fucking face about another thing you don’t know. You are doing a fallacy where you think my calling you a dumb idiot liar somehow negates all the points I brought up because your babybrain can’t handle numbers higher than two, and somehow I can roast the shit out of you while simultaneously negating your points. The best you can get is that I said only fucking morons would believe the stupid shit you say, but even that fails to capture that I explained why it was stupid dumbass fucking bullshit lies that you managed to regurgitate from your master.
It’s just loser behavior over and over again because you simply repeated everything with nothing additional. Anyway, hope you get that Israel money or whatever you’re in this for because you keep trying to high road lies like a foreign agent. Let me know when you have a fourth (wow, big number alert!) piece of evidence so I can take your argument seriously.
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).
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?
That’s not what an ad hominem is, dumb-dumb, take a Latin or Logic class. Please quote to me where you think I did an ad hominem and then provide a definition for it so I can laugh in your fucking face about another thing you don’t know. You are doing a fallacy where you think my calling you a dumb idiot liar somehow negates all the points I brought up because your babybrain can’t handle numbers higher than two, and somehow I can roast the shit out of you while simultaneously negating your points. The best you can get is that I said only fucking morons would believe the stupid shit you say, but even that fails to capture that I explained why it was stupid dumbass fucking bullshit lies that you managed to regurgitate from your master.
It’s just loser behavior over and over again because you simply repeated everything with nothing additional. Anyway, hope you get that Israel money or whatever you’re in this for because you keep trying to high road lies like a foreign agent. Let me know when you have a fourth (wow, big number alert!) piece of evidence so I can take your argument seriously.
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-
These are all “Abusive ad hominem / name-calling” because they target my intelligence, character and credibility rather than my claims.
Here you’re “Poisoning The Well” by trying to discredit any future claims or arguments I might bring.
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.
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”.
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.