I gathered that you are spreading misinformation. I gathered that you decided you has nothing to reply with that wouldn’t admit that I am correct so you called me a troll. I gathered that you misunderstood how people have been strawmanning my argument.
I replied to the most obscene part of your comment first. No rebuttle? I hope you find peace.
Let’s start with your assertions that I am spreading misinformation: quote the statement. Explain your reasoning for believing that. If you cannot? Further conversation isn’t possible and you’ll have only reinforced my earlier assessment of you.
Assuming we can clarify your assessment of my statement we can continue to play. Your move.
To your point on rape kits: ‘rape kits’ are multi part examinations. They ascertain if the party had sex. They look for “evidence” of the partner. They look for indications of injuries. They record a statement. The issue lies in all of this data being circumstantial.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
Physical evidence that is intimately linked to the case facts is called real evidence. The jury must examine such proof tangibly. Common examples include guns, DNA, knives, blood samples, fingerprints, and other material artifacts.
https://dlplawyers.com/4-types-of-evidence-you-should-be-aware-of/
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it. Until then, I think the people’s encyclopedia is good enough for the sake of our discussion.
If you find fault in its information… I’m happy to cite other sources… but you will need to specifically point out what invalidates it.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
Very good. That aligns with what I said.
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it.
All evidence is circumstantial. DNA confirms the presence of a person. Hair and bodily fluids all indicate the presence of a person. Certainly that can include sex. Sex however does not immediately indicate rape - thus circumstances matter. This defines it as (wait for it) circumstantial evidence.
Now that we have clarified this basic fact: I cannot help but notice you have somehow not pointed out one incorrect thing with my statement. I’ll forgive you for getting lost in your hand waving- care to try again?
Providing a link and saying “educate yourself” does not refute this claim. The link doesn’t even mention circumstantial evidence, which is what you are claiming.
Please provide evidence of your claim that all rape kits are circumstantial evidence.
If you find fault in its information… I’m happy to cite other sources… but you will need to specifically point out what invalidates it.
You only need to cite one reputable source. But it has to actually validate your claim is the thing.
All evidence is circumstantial. DNA confirms the presence of a person. Hair and bodily fluids all indicate the presence of a person. Certainly that can include sex. Sex however does not immediately indicate rape - thus circumstances matter. This defines it as (wait for it) circumstantial evidence.
So your new claim is that all evidence is circumstantial. Ok, you now have 2 claims to prove.
Now that we have clarified this basic fact: I cannot help but notice you have somehow not pointed out one incorrect thing with my statement. I’ll forgive you for getting lost in your hand waving- care to try again?
Well, you haven’t done that yet, but keep trying, champ!
I’ll be happy to reengage you if you can provide something worth discussing. But I could have the current discussion path you’ve fallen down with a parrot.
I gathered that you are spreading misinformation. I gathered that you decided you has nothing to reply with that wouldn’t admit that I am correct so you called me a troll. I gathered that you misunderstood how people have been strawmanning my argument.
I replied to the most obscene part of your comment first. No rebuttle? I hope you find peace.
Alright, I’ll let you entertain me more.
Let’s start with your assertions that I am spreading misinformation: quote the statement. Explain your reasoning for believing that. If you cannot? Further conversation isn’t possible and you’ll have only reinforced my earlier assessment of you.
Assuming we can clarify your assessment of my statement we can continue to play. Your move.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it. Until then, I think the people’s encyclopedia is good enough for the sake of our discussion.
For reference: https://www.surviverape.org/forensics/sexual-assault-forensics/rape-exam
Educate yourself.
If you find fault in its information… I’m happy to cite other sources… but you will need to specifically point out what invalidates it.
Very good. That aligns with what I said.
All evidence is circumstantial. DNA confirms the presence of a person. Hair and bodily fluids all indicate the presence of a person. Certainly that can include sex. Sex however does not immediately indicate rape - thus circumstances matter. This defines it as (wait for it) circumstantial evidence.
Now that we have clarified this basic fact: I cannot help but notice you have somehow not pointed out one incorrect thing with my statement. I’ll forgive you for getting lost in your hand waving- care to try again?
Providing a link and saying “educate yourself” does not refute this claim. The link doesn’t even mention circumstantial evidence, which is what you are claiming.
Please provide evidence of your claim that all rape kits are circumstantial evidence.
You only need to cite one reputable source. But it has to actually validate your claim is the thing.
So your new claim is that all evidence is circumstantial. Ok, you now have 2 claims to prove.
Well, you haven’t done that yet, but keep trying, champ!
https://www.egattorneys.com/circumstantial-evidence-in-criminal-cases
You can pick through that if you like. I’ve been plenty clear about everything up to this point where you have, at best, resorted to mimicry.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery
Compliment received. Thank you.
I’ll be happy to reengage you if you can provide something worth discussing. But I could have the current discussion path you’ve fallen down with a parrot.
I don’t give a shit about debating you bro. I just want you to believe the women in your life when they tell you that they’ve been raped.
Fuck’s sake man. Get over yourself.
This was never a debate. This was the systematic destruction of someone who was either a mid troll at worst or someone virtue signalling at best.
I’m certain all womankind is thankful for your service. You’ve been a beacon of light in this thread.
As I said before-
genuinely: I hope you find peace.
You’re trolling, right now you do realize.
Shut the fuck up man, if you have something to say say it. Don’t cower out of this.
As I said before- genuinely: I hope you find peace.