A Brutal Inheritance • Hacker News Board

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#21

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #20

gerbilly wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure how you rationalize stating falsehood as any kind of "acceptable journalistic practice" You're just being obtuse¹ now, it's such a reasonable inference given the circumstances that it's petty of you to place such a high burden of proof on the writer. Also you're denying one other important piece of evidence in favour of rape. Why did the mother never speak about it? If she had had a joyful affair with…

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because what you've done here is a kind of microcosm, so intrinsic to the way people behave today that it dominates whatever passes as "public debate" in the United States. I did not say, nor do I assert, that it was not possible for the woman to have been raped. Given the circumstances, I also think it's likely to have been rape. But no one knows the facts, and it is not a f…

You haven't proven your claims of lying or false claims to any reasonable standard.

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#22

Post by fapjacks » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 3:26 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #21

fapjacks wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because what you've done here is a kind of microcosm, so intrinsic to the way people behave today that it dominates whatever passes as "public debate" in the United States. I did not say, nor do I assert, that it was not possible for the woman to have been raped. Given the circumstances, I also think it's likely to have been rape. But no one knows the facts, and it is not a f…

You haven't proven your claims of lying or false claims to any reasonable standard.

The writer explicitly states "he was 57 years old when he raped Bernice Johnson" in the paragraph directly above the photo of the Parchman Superintendent's house. So you didn't read my posts, I guess, but you also did not read the article?

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#23

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #22

gerbilly wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't proven your claims of lying or false claims to any reasonable standard.

The writer explicitly states "he was 57 years old when he raped Bernice Johnson" in the paragraph directly above the photo of the Parchman Superintendent's house. So you didn't read my posts, I guess, but you also did not read the article?

I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments.

You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable.

When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there?

I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#24

Post by fapjacks » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #23

fapjacks wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writer explicitly states "he was 57 years old when he raped Bernice Johnson" in the paragraph directly above the photo of the Parchman Superintendent's house. So you didn't read my posts, I guess, but you also did not read the article?

I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments. You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable. When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there? I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?

I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#25

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #24

gerbilly wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments. You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable. When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there? I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?

I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.

No I'm not often surprised, but it is interesting to run across someone who thinks so differently from me.

In fact I've had a great deal of experience with a person exhibiting what seems like a similar cluster of behaviours.

Call it a kind of 'professional curiosity', which is why I kept the thread going past the point where any agreement seemed possible.

A poster here one said that "everyone thinks their experiences are normative". I suspect both of us are perhaps doing that.

I wish you well, and I don't mean to sound disparaging.

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#26

Post by dang » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #24

gerbilly wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments. You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable. When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there? I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?

I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.

Crossing into personal attack is not cool. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Brutal Inheritance

#27

Post by fapjacks » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #26

fapjacks wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.

Crossing into personal attack is not cool. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I assure you it wasn't a personal attack anymore than gerbilly's "obtuse" comment (and again, giving that person the benefit of the doubt, as I have throughout this thread). You and I are definitely on different wavelengths, but ignoring for a moment that someone flagged multiple of my comments (and not making any assumptions about that), nothing approaching spite or malice went into this thread.