and I'm tired of pretending it isn't

So frog images do cause OP to be 200% gayer than if he posted any other image?

>>16713505 (OP)
so yellow fingers cause smokers lung, got it.

Correlation is correlated with causation

>>16713505 (OP)
yes yes yes
indeed it is the water in all the liquor bottles that is making you drunk.
your Nobel prize is in the mail

>>16713529
>Dear Honor, just because a DNA sequence allegedly happened to be found within the reproductive organ of that woman and allegedly that DNA sequence seems to match with a DNA sequence derived from my bodily fluids, does not necessarily mean I was performing an act against her will that is punishable by law. >Who knows how such DNA sequence got in there? It's her word against mine. No witnesses.
Is that how you like to argue?

>>16713564
Correct. Maybe they had consensual sex with a condom, he threw it away, she dug it out of the trash, poured it into her vagina, then used a rape kit. You got any evidence to rule that out aside from simply trusting her word over his?

>>16713569
You can't rule out that the whole universe including your memories was created last Thursday. To rule out all possibilities is an impossible to meet standard of evidence. So what standard of evidence do you propose? When can we agree on the most plausible scenario?

>>16713576
I accept your concession.

>>16713569
You're trying to convince the jury, not the judge. The jury correctly believes that correlation equals causation.

>>16713580
Then they are not a jury of my peers. My peers are not that stupid.

>>16713576
>When can we agree on the most plausible scenario?
When you no longer need to trust one's story over the other's to make your conclusion. Your scenario is she-says. My scenario is he-says. Ergo, both should be rejected. Your scenario is neither-said, but also irrelevant. Do better.

>>16713582
That kind of talk isn't doing you any favors with the jury, anon. Why did you rape that girl?

>>16713579
I ain't no conceded to nuffing. You're basically philosofagging about we can't know nuffing about anything which does not contribute to any progress or justice in this world.

>>16713587
Yes, it's called being objective.

>>16713583
All observations, logic and reason are contextual, subjective, a narrative of some kind. Yet there is a hierarchy of narratives that are considered more or less true than the other. Please do tell how you are going to come to any conclusion.

>>16713591
I like women, I hate men. The guy raped the woman and he should go to jail.

>>16713593
No it's not all a power struggle. Roads look parallel when viewed from above but look like they are coming together in a point on the horizon when standing on the ground looking forwards. Clearly one point of view is more true than the other and it has nothing to do with power, self-interest or something like that.

>>16713599
Obviously, roads coming together to a point is more correct. If they didn't connect, they would be fucking worthless.

>>16713591
>Please do tell how you are going to come to any conclusion.
Stack the jury then appeal to their emotions.

>>16713580
>You're trying to convince the jury, not the judge
Only if you live in some common "law" dystopia where feels prevail over reals.

>>16713644
You don't live in one? What is the legal system where you live, and why do you think it's any different?

Your argument is literally
>judge, jury, you have to be objective! Can you convict me, without being certain you aren't being duped by descartes' demon?
No place on Earth will buy that argument, because it is objectively stupid.

>>16713644
>common "law"
>dystopia
you don't understand what the distinction between civil and common law is

>>16713671
>We cannot abolish he-said she-said favoritism because [irrelevant & irreverent schizosophy]

>>16713590
No, it's called being a douchebag. Humans can know things; they just can't ever know them in complete and fully-granular detail, as the effort (read:energy) expenditure required to observe, analyze and understand the things increases logarithmically the more granularly the things are observed, analyzed and understood.

>>16713700
>logarithmically
evidence?

>>16713700
You literally cannot know who is lying in court.
Lawyers literally get paid to find gotchas in everything. They also are human and can lie.

>>16713682
>how can you trust the coroner's report, your honor? That's just the coroner's word against mine!

>>16713845
anon... there's something called expertise.

>>16713864
>trust the experts
Yeah, no.

>>16713505 (OP)
likewise,
>anecdotes aren't data
yeah they are, if you have enough of them saying the same thing

>>16713707
So you raped someone...

>>16714068
Wow you're (not) so smart

>>16714264
it was me. he raped me :(

>>16714284
I believe you. Anyone making a thread on the basis "everyone lies so you cant believe anything anyone says and i certainly havent raped anyone" is a rapist.

>>16713505 (OP)
indirectly sure

>>16714266
Do you have a study proving that? Do you have a degree from an acredited university in that field?
Didn't think so. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.

>>16714367
Why did you rape this anon?
>>16714284
I believe you too.

>>16713505 (OP)
You're literally retarded. It must be the only casual factor in you believing such a stupid thing.

>>16713510
/thread