Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Severian
I'm not sure what you're on about man. All SFAD is saying is that, regardless of all speculations and testimonies about Larkin's personality, and irrespective of any bias, legal or public, there's no actual evidence to suggest that a rape didn't happen. That's all he's saying man. He's not attacking Gira, and he's not generalizing. He's speaking to this accusation and the specific incident in question and in response to all these "What ifs," and "but she saids," he's simply saying "yes, perhaps, but that doesn't mean she wasn't raped."
And he's right! None of this character questioning, or perceptions about her mental health or her history of dishonesty have any hard and fast bearing on whether or not she knowingly consented to having intercourse with Michael Gira.
That's not to say she DIDN'T consent, that's not to say she ISN'T lying... Only that there's been no reliable or valid reason to assume that she is lying.
It may look like he's taking sides, but the only thing SFAD is advocating is reason and logic. Maybe that confuses you, because in your mind anyone who says anything other than "it didn't happen" is automatically siding with the accuser, but that's not what's happening. We don't Fucking know, man! And no matter what kind of dirt you dig up on someone, none of it can or should be generalized to such an extent that that person is written off as a liar forever. Indeed, she could be lying about everything in her account, but not even that CONFIRMS or PROVES that she WAS NOT raped.
Take a step back and view this more objectively. We all have our opinions and gut feelings, but if anyone among us is brazen enough to say we KNOW what happened, then this conversation is forever fucked, because we're looking at the world and this case in two conoletely different and irreconcilable ways. If you think you *know* then you're fucking off your lid.
It must be really easy on the old noggin to view the world in such a black and white way, without hesitation or consideration for the complexities of the "truth." I envy you, but you'd make a god awful philosopher, and I'll bet you'd struggle with calculus too.
|
right, except you've missed that i did make this very point about the unprovability of the entire thing a few pages back.
there is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that larkin is lying and making a false allegation which means it did not happen.
plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere.
if we are seriously getting into what can only be described as an absurd philosophical argument about the inability of anyone to actually prove anything then i feel condescended to.
i feel that what is being asked of me here is to say that there is a possibility grimm is telling the truth, and i refuse to do this because it means supporting her deliberate and malicious false rape allegations.
i do not think that anyone who has considered the evidence available so far could credibly and honestly come to the conclusion that grimm is not lying.
she admitted that she made false accusations of sexual assault about the members of a previous band she was in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Margaret Morris
When she feared her place in the band was in jeopardy, she fabricated sexual harassment allegations against the main three band members who saw through her lies and wanted her out. Later she addressed the entire group, promising no more lies and that she was trying to be a better person–that she felt that the person she was when she was playing was the better person that she strived to be in life. Unfortunately, Grimm has not been successful in that aim. She went on to publically conflate an unfortunate incident within my then broken relationship with Thomas Ellis–an incident she uses lies to describe–with a rape allegation she made against producer Michael Gira from 2008, two completely unrelated stories beyond Grimm’s opportunistic linking in order to publicise her new album.
-Margaret Morris of Heroes Are Gang Leaders
|
the idea that i should entertain the possibility of truth of the accusations of a pathological liar who has vowed to destroy the career of the person she is making the accusations about and who hides behind the excuse of mental illness when caught out making deliberate and malicious slander against innocent people for her own sick pleasure is frankly silly.
i cannot prove that if i shoot myself in the head with a gun it will kill me, i admit this. i am however still prepared to stand by the proposition that it will as a factual statement. i am prepared to take a priori evidence of the result as fact.
if we are seriously having an argument where you demand i admit my inability to prove anything whatsoever then i won't continue.
i know grimm is a liar and i knew it from the start. i know gira is innocent and i knew it from the start. i am prepared to make those statements. what you are all pretending not to notice is that if grimm is lying then gira did not rape her. you are all relativists in a selective and fiercely stupid way which refuses to accept any logical consequences whatsoever. i am being told that grimm should be believed because she COULD be telling the truth, and therefore i cannot come to a conclusion otherwise. this is not an argument i accept.
i've been told by people there is a actual god who exists in the sky and created the world 2000 years ago, i know this is not true and am prepared to state that i know it is not true as a fact. and that is the end of me discussing provability with anyone in this thread. if you want to discuss the thing in itself and what we can and cannot know about it then we can do that elsewhere.