Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
#ibelieveher part II
Options
Comments
-
I think even if Duffy had come out with a watertight story, backed up with evidence and witnesses, people would still query it. We query everything. For there to be any implausibility to the story really makes it that much more difficult for the teller.
Duffy would have nearly had been better off letting the story be leaked, then suing the people who leaked it and then getting her side of the story out, but 100% understand if she wanted to take control over the whole thing.0 -
the_pen_turner wrote: »I have an open mind. I look at these thing from a neutral point of view as much as posible.
She is making a very large and serious claim. The problem is her story doesn't back up that claim fully. It is full of holes.
My opinion is the same as yours. I dont know enough of the details to draw a proper conclusion. I dont know if its tru or not.
I'm not saying she should list off every tiny detail . That could do harm like you say. But rather a brief overview that makes sense. Right now she is leaving the whole situation open to twisting and manipulation from the media .
But giving the details you might like to satisfy your personal curiosity could lead to "investigative journalists", from tabloids, snooping around and making up any old details and publishing them. She left it so vague that nobody could even begin to investigate. The only people who should investigate are the police - not even people like you and me who have absolutely no expertise.
So I don't know why she released the bullet point details she did. And I don’t pretend to know. I don’t see holes in the story, I barely see a story. It’s just a claim which needs to be investigated to find out of its true or not.
How is this so hard to understand? If you don’t know enough to reach a conclusion (and I think we all agree that we don’t know enough to reach a conclusion) then why pretend we have enough info to reach conclusions?0 -
the_pen_turner wrote: »I have an open mind. I look at these thing from a neutral point of view as much as posible.
She is making a very large and serious claim. The problem is her story doesn't back up that claim fully. It is full of holes.
My opinion is the same as yours. I dont know enough of the details to draw a proper conclusion. I dont know if its tru or not.
I'm not saying she should list off every tiny detail . That could do harm like you say. But rather a brief overview that makes sense. Right now she is leaving the whole situation open to twisting and manipulation from the media .
But giving the details you might like to satisfy your personal curiosity could lead to "investigative journalists", from tabloids, snooping around and making up any old details and publishing them. She left it so vague that nobody could even begin to investigate. The only people who should investigate are the police - not even people like you and me who have absolutely no expertise.
So I don't know why she released the bullet point details she did. And I don’t pretend to know. I don’t see holes in the story, I barely see a story. It’s just a claim which needs to be investigated to find out of its true or not.
How is this so hard to understand? If you don’t know enough to reach a conclusion (and I think we all agree that we don’t know enough to reach a conclusion) then why pretend we have enough info to reach conclusions?0 -
I think even if Duffy had come out with a watertight story, backed up with evidence and witnesses, people would still query it. We query everything. For there to be any implausibility to the story really makes it that much more difficult for the teller.
Duffy would have nearly had been better off letting the story be leaked, then suing the people who leaked it and then getting her side of the story out, but 100% understand if she wanted to take control over the whole thing.
Ah can you imagine what it's like when those people camp outside your house for weeks looking to hassle you into getting thing and telling them to fcuk off and then they have a story about you in meltdown. They bully and make your life until you either play ball with the bullies or try to fight them and they portray you as mental. Nobody can call around to see you, you can't see friends, because that makes then a target for similar treatment and bribes to spill some gossip. And all this is about a personal traumatic event. It's no life.
Having some clowns play Columbo on the internet and spot some "holes" in your story, might be the obviously easy choice over the tabloid circus outside your house.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Nobody: meme.
It’s not a question of whether anyone besides Duffy knows what did or didn’t happen. It’s a question of whether or not anyone believes what Duffy claims to have happened, and to that end at least - there is more evidence to support the idea in my view that it’s an attention seeking ploy (hence the meme you didn’t get, which is fair enough, I do actually believe you).
I’m not concerned with what you do or don’t claim to know, so I haven’t given any thought to whether you’re an eejit or not. If you’d said you believed Duffy, then there’s every chance I’d think you were an eejit (albeit a well-meaning idiot who I would completely disagree with).
While I could of course pretend to know what I like, and I could also pretend to believe what I like, the evidence I have so far is not compelling enough to have me believe that Duffy is anything more than an attention seeker exposing herself to as wide an audience as possible on social media by concocting a fantastic tale of misfortune and hoping people will make it a positive experience for her. If making it a positive experience for her includes unquestioning acceptance of her account, then that’s something I’m not prepared to do.
It’s similar to the way in which men who claim they are women want people to make it a positive experience for them by unquestioningly accepting that they are a woman, in spite of the fact that everyone involved knows better, but they are asked to pretend to believe otherwise in order to maintain a facade, or a pretence.
Do you think it does anyone any favours to pretend to believe them, only to pull the rug of support out from beneath them when they make claims that you just can’t support, Alyssa Milano style?
Oh look if you want to bring your bias against trans people or the #metoo movement into it, then you’re playing your hand far too early. I get it you se this story in the already negative light of trans people and #metoo. Starting with the conclusion and working backwards if the exact opposite of what I’m doing.
It doesn’t matter whether you start by believing whatever she says or start by disbelieving it. They’re both starting with the conclusion and working backwards from there.
The logical thing to do is to view it as a claim which would need to be investigated to have any idea if it’s true or not. But that would require leaving your trans bias and #metoo bias out of it which I'm not sure you're prepare to do.0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »The logical thing to do is to view it as a claim which would need to be investigated to have any idea if it’s true or not. But that would require leaving your trans bias and #metoo bias out of it which I'm not sure you're prepare to do.
I disagree - the logical thing for a person making a claim, who wants people to believe their claim, is for that person to provide evidence for their claim. I have no interest investigating anyone’s claims. I have better things to be doing. However, if a person attempts to condemn me for not believing their claims, I’ll direct them to the evidence I have which casts doubt upon their claims, and why I don’t believe them.
That’s why I used the example of a man who tries to convince me they are a woman - I don’t have anything against a person solely on the basis that they are transgender. I have no problem being honest in admitting that I’m not convinced that a man is a woman, because the evidence does not support their claim. That’s as basic logic as it gets - the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Duffy has provided no evidence for her claims, so I see no reason to move from assuming that she is an attention seeker hoping to capitalise on the momentum generated by the metoo movement in order to thrust herself back into the limelight. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption based upon the evidence I have seen so far, and I haven’t seen any evidence to counter that basic assumption. It’s undoubtedly biased of course, but again I don’t mind admitting that. I also don’t mind admitting that I believe Duffy’s claims of having been drugged, kidnapped and raped are complete nonsense. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to move from that point.
As an aside, I would hope that the example she has tried to set is not followed by anyone who has been the victim of a crime, I would sooner simply encourage them to make a report to the authorities than to broadcast their personal business on social media in the hope that people make it a “positive experience” for them.0 -
The second bold is just what I said to begin with. You said you "see no reason to move from assuming that she is an attention seeker" You're starting from that assumption which is kinda exactly what I said earlier.One eyed Jack wrote: »I disagree - the logical thing for a person making a claim, who wants people to believe their claim, is for that person to provide evidence for their claim. I have no interest investigating anyone’s claims. I have better things to be doing. However, if a person attempts to condemn me for not believing their claims, I’ll direct them to the evidence I have which casts doubt upon their claims, and why I don’t believe them....
Duffy has provided no evidence for her claims, so I see no reason to move from assuming that she is an attention seeker hoping to capitalise on the momentum generated by the metoo movement in order to thrust herself back into the limelight. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption based upon the evidence I have seen so far, and I haven’t seen any evidence to counter that basic assumption. It’s undoubtedly biased of course, but again I don’t mind admitting that. I also don’t mind admitting that I believe Duffy’s claims of having been drugged, kidnapped and raped are complete nonsense. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to move from that point.
...
I, on the other hand, don't start from any assumption. I see a claim which I've no way to test so I don't pretend to be able to test it. I think the claim should be investigated by the police and she should furnish THEM with all the detail she can to help THEM to find out if it's true or not. She doesn't need to give the details to you and me because she doesn't have to convince you and me that it happened.
It's perfectly possible,that she was just breaking the bullet points of the story to prevent the tabloids from publishing their own accounts of what happened. Ultimately, I don't know why she gave the bare bullet points that she did. So, unlike you, I won't pretend to know. I don't know whether it happened or not. So, unlike you, I won't pretend to know. And I don't know her motivation. So, unlike you, I don't pretend to know.
I just see a claim which I think should be investigated to find out if it's true or not.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »She doesn't need to give the details to you and me because she doesn't have to convince you and me that it happened.
Apart from anything else, that’s where we fundamentally disagree. If someone is asking me to make something a positive experience for them, then I need to know what I’m letting myself in for. I have no interest in encouraging anyone to make claims in order to seek attention for themselves, so when someone asks me to make their attention seeking efforts a positive experience for them, I don’t want to encourage that sort of behaviour. I would have to be convinced that something actually happened to them before I’d have any interest in offering my support to someone in the first place.
In Duffys case, I’m not convinced. My opinion in this particular case does not apply to other cases. It specifically applies to this particular case, based upon the evidence presented in this particular case. In another case where the same claims are being made by an entirely different individual, I might be more inclined to believe them and therefore offer them my support. My support is, and has always been, contingent upon whether or not I am convinced that a person is prepared to be honest with me.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »She left it so vague that nobody could even begin to investigate.
Dude, I know I said I'd drop out but lad, you are flip flopping all over the place.
You criticise us for forming an opinion based on what she said (without 100% of the facts) yet you seem to be forming your own opinion, example above.
At least be consistent.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Apart from anything else, that’s where we fundamentally disagree. If someone is asking me to make something a positive experience for them, then I need to know what I’m letting myself in for. I have no interest in encouraging anyone to make claims in order to seek attention for themselves, so when someone asks me to make their attention seeking efforts a positive experience for them, I don’t want to encourage that sort of behaviour. I would have to be convinced that something actually happened to them before I’d have any interest in offering my support to someone in the first place.
In Duffys case, I’m not convinced. My opinion in this particular case does not apply to other cases. It specifically applies to this particular case, based upon the evidence presented in this particular case. In another case where the same claims are being made by an entirely different individual, I might be more inclined to believe them and therefore offer them my support. My support is, and has always been, contingent upon whether or not I am convinced that a person is prepared to be honest with me.
Did she ask you to make it a positive experience for her? I think you’ve taken that role upon yourself. As you have taken on the role of investigating the “evidence”.
But ultimately you’ve already said you have reached a conclusion that she is an attention seeker - I presume you also men a you disbelieve the claim she’s making hit you haven’t been explicit on that.
You said you don’t see any reason to change your “assumption”. You either had that assumption before reason the account or you reached that “assumption” as a result of your assessment the “evidence”. Both are terribly flawed positions.
There is no evidence, there is only a claim. There is absolutely no corroborating evidence and no way to test whether the claim is true or not. If you’ve reached a conclusion based on the claim alone, then you’ve successfully fooled yourself. But it should be telling that your conclusion without evidence, fits neatly into your view of the related issue of #metoo.
When you reach the conclusion you’d like, without evidence, that’s just wishful thinking.0 -
Advertisement
-
BattleCorp wrote: »Dude, I know I said I'd drop out but lad, you are flip flopping all over the place.
You criticise us for forming an opinion based on what she said (without 100% of the facts) yet you seem to be forming your own opinion, example above.
At least be consistent.
That’s just a description of the claim she made - not a conclusion on why she did it. It’s very vague. So vague that you couldn’t investigate it. Its just an accurate description of the claim.
It’s a claim which doesn’t have any evidence attached. So how could you reach any conclusions about whether it’s true or not?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »When you reach the conclusion you’d like, without evidence, that’s just wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is expecting you to engage honestly in the conversation when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Having reached the conclusion that you’re unwilling to engage honestly in the conversation, I’m done here.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Wishful thinking is expecting you to engage honestly in the conversation when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Having reached the conclusion that you’re unwilling to engage honestly in the conversation, I’m done here.
Now now, don't get personal.
You've avoided the salient poi in that post, namely: how do you arrive at the "assumption" that she's an attention seeker. It's either a conclusion you carried in based on bias, or a conclusion you reached based on the claim and without any actual evidence.
So in either case, I think you've fooled yourself into thinking you have good grounds for your assumption.
Also, it's a shame you didn't bother to say where you got the notion that she asked you to make it a positive experience for her. I think you're assigning yourself a job that nobody has asked you to do. LOL.0 -
Zero surprise that the usual suspects seem hell bent on making her out to be a liar.
For the record, people can query her account, but that’s not what the usuals are doing.0 -
Zero surprise that the usual suspects seem hell bent on making her out to be a liar.
For the record, people can query her account, but that’s not what the usuals are doing.
Of course it's completely predictable that the usual suspects are assuming she's not telling the truth. As predictable as their opposition to #metoo or anything where a woman has the gall to make n accusation against man. They assume she's "seeking attention" or whatever is necessary to discredit her.
It's such a shame because they could simply view it as an accusation which should be investigated to find out if it's true or not. But instead they choose whether to believe it or not based purely on pre existing bias.0 -
it seems a hugely unlikely scenario
that's independently obvious regardless of the usuals demanding we regard it as 50/50 or (worse) demanding we accept it as true unless definitively proven otherwise
luckily, we can just go on thinking its a hugely unlikely scenario and all they can do is post another hundred logically-tortured posts proving their bonafides for the hashtag cru0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »it seems a hugely unlikely scenario
that's independently obvious regardless of the usuals demanding we regard it as 50/50 or (worse) demanding we accept it as true unless definitively proven otherwise
luckily, we can just go on thinking its a hugely unlikely scenario and all they can do is post another hundred logically-tortured posts proving their bonafides for the hashtag cru
Sure. Luckily the most logical solution is to just see it as a claim which should be investigated. And drawing any conclusions based on the information we have is only for dunces.0 -
Zero surprise that the usual suspects seem hell bent on making her out to be a liar.
For the record, people can query her account, but that’s not what the usuals are doing.
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. You'll notice when near my rock there are no tigers around.
Care to buy my rock?
...Or are you calling me a liar?
Presenting problems as a false dichotomy only perpetuates outrage.0 -
Truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction but when I first read that account my immediate though was "definitely something not right about that".
Not saying nothing happened her, or it's any sort of deliberate ploy, but I really find it hard to take the account at face value, it's so just incredibly vague given the logistical complexity of the situation and implausible.
However, it could probably be rationally explained, in the context that no-one reported her (a world famous, renowned singer) missing for a full month, if she was involved in a toxic/bad relationship that went down a dark path.....and whatever the truth of that path is, who knows.
Really strange case, wonder if we'll ever hear more.0 -
Yeah sure. I couldn’t possibly believe it’s true based purely on that account because of the vagueness, as you point out. I also couldn’t believe it’s not true based on the account - because of the vagueness. Nor could you reach any conclusions like believing she’s an attention seeker- because of the vagueness.Homelander wrote: »...
Not saying nothing happened her, or it's any sort of deliberate ploy, but I really find it hard to take the account at face value, it's so just incredibly vague given the logistical complexity of the situation and implausible.
...
If you reach any conclusions based on the account, then you’re probably just confirming your own bias. It’s absolutely no surprise that the ones who already dislike the #metoo movement are also the posters who think they can reach the conclusions that it’s not true or that she’s an attention seeker. That’s just how bias works. It’s nothing to be surprised about. It’s just basic human bias at play. But it’s interesting to see it happening all the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Yeah sure. I couldn’t possibly believe it’s true based purely on that account because of the vagueness, as you point out. I also couldn’t believe it’s not true based on the account - because of the vagueness. Nor could you reach any conclusions like believing she’s an attention seeker- because of the vagueness.
If you reach any conclusions based on the account, then you’re probably just confirming your own bias. It’s absolutely no surprise that the ones who already dislike the #metoo movement are also the posters who think they can reach the conclusions that it’s not true or that she’s an attention seeker. That’s just how bias works. It’s nothing to be surprised about. It’s just basic human bias at play. But it’s interesting to see it happening all the same.
I really don't get where you're coming from. The account is too vague to believe or not to believe - if that's the case then there is nothing left to do but to rubbish the whole account and forget about it.
What use is it? It's being told to the public for a specific reason, to get her story across, people are entitled to question it or anything else they come across via the media or just ignore it completely because it sounds nonsensical.
The reason Duffy is telling the story, according to her, is to help other people by giving a harrowing account of the abuse and degradation she suffered. What people who have suffered or are suffering similar experiences need to be told is that they seek help, they go to the police immediately to report a crime or any crime, that they immediately remove themselves from the situation and don't allow it to persist.
And it would be incredibly affirming for those in similar experiences to hear she has done the same, but it doesn't sound like she has reported a crime. Again, we just have her account, you have to question it. I think there is genuine debate to be had in that regard whether she has done others a disservice by not doing so.
And just to be clear, I can criticise what Duffy has spoken about and not be anti-metoo or anti-women.0 -
I really don't get where you're coming from. The account is too vague to believe or not to believe - if that's the case then there is nothing left to do but to rubbish the whole account and forget about it.
...
Why would you rubbish the whole thing? Why not just acknowledge that there’s a claim and that you’ve no way to know if it’s true or not? No need to rubbish it at all.
I’ve no idea if it’s true or not. I’ve no way to test if it’s true or not. And it’s not my job to find out if it’s true or not - that would be for police and courts to investigate and figure it out. I don’t need to worry about reaching a conclusion on whether it’s true or not. It’s just a claim something happened.0 -
is it your job to tell people they literally actually are not allowed to disbelieve the story
funny job0 -
Deleted User wrote: »is it your job to tell people they literally actually are not allowed to disbelieve the story
funny job
Think of him as a nun of feminism.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »is it your job to tell people they literally actually are not allowed to disbelieve the story
funny job
Where did anyone do that?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Why would you rubbish the whole thing? Why not just acknowledge that there’s a claim and that you’ve no way to know if it’s true or not? No need to rubbish it at all.
I’ve no idea if it’s true or not. I’ve no way to test if it’s true or not. And it’s not my job to find out if it’s true or not - that would be for police and courts to investigate and figure it out. I don’t need to worry about reaching a conclusion on whether it’s true or not. It’s just a claim something happened.
Firstly I hope it’s looked into for her
Your first paragraph though. It’s important people question these claims and try get to the truth. It’s like AGS posting on twitter claiming to have saved lives by giving a fixed penalty notice to a motorist caught using their mobile when there’s only one recorded incident in Ireland where a Polish person using mobile phone caused a fatal accident.
Or AGS saying they arrested 51 people for drink driving when the majority couldn’t give a breath sample due to health issues or were under the limit when tested in the station. Doesn’t tally up with court appearances etc. Government uses these figures to justify harsher penalties.
Go to any secondary school with a survey on underage drinking and a lot of students will claim they’ve drank to look cooler. Used as excuses to increase taxes on alcohol
Same with unfounded accusations/allegations. The pc crowd will be calling for imprisonment without trial.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I can. It’s no different to your suggestion that they shouldn’t. The whole point of a jury trial is that the accused is tried by a jury of their peers - ordinary members of the public, with all their own prejudices and biases. Of course one can ask them to put their prejudices aside and judge the accused in each case on the basis of the evidence before them, but that’s an idealistic notion rather than anything grounded in reality.
Well it is, you cannot sit on a jury if you have a preconceived judgement, you must be open to question and balance both sides0 -
Hangdogroad wrote: »Might it have been someone she was in a relationship with?
Sounds very much like it, she was addicted to
drugs and is recounting that time and trying to
explain how out of it she was but failing to see
any damage she could have done or did do and
is unable to admit it to herself0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Why would you rubbish the whole thing? Why not just acknowledge that there’s a claim and that you’ve no way to know if it’s true or not? No need to rubbish it at all.
I’ve no idea if it’s true or not. I’ve no way to test if it’s true or not. And it’s not my job to find out if it’s true or not - that would be for police and courts to investigate and figure it out. I don’t need to worry about reaching a conclusion on whether it’s true or not. It’s just a claim something happened.
It's not just a claim though, it's a claim of a very serious incident which is a crime and should bring with it a criminal investigation and possibly legal consequences.
It's also a claim that can tarnish someones reputation and ruin their livelihood.
It would be blithe and spurious to treat it as a mere claim.0 -
Advertisement
-
Grab All Association wrote: »Firstly I hope it’s looked into for her
Your first paragraph though. It’s important people question these claims and try get to the truth. It’s like AGS posting on twitter claiming to have saved lives by giving a fixed penalty notice to a motorist caught using their mobile when there’s only one recorded incident in Ireland where a Polish person using mobile phone caused a fatal accident.
Or AGS saying they arrested 51 people for drink driving when the majority couldn’t give a breath sample due to health issues or were under the limit when tested in the station. Doesn’t tally up with court appearances etc. Government uses these figures to justify harsher penalties.
Go to any secondary school with a survey on underage drinking and a lot of students will claim they’ve drank to look cooler. Used as excuses to increase taxes on alcohol
Same with unfounded accusations/allegations. The pc crowd will be calling for imprisonment without trial.
Sure. Your examples above are different to this because they have ways to test the claim, as you’ve demonstrated above.
So how do you propose to investigate Duffy’s claim? I don’t have any way to investigate it so I won’t be investigating it or reaching any conclusions about it. What will you do?
I certainly won’t call for imprisonment without trial. She hasn’t even made an accusation against anyone. And as I’ve said all along, the claims should be investigated by the police to find out if they’re true or not - the normal thing to do.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement