DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Watson trade off the field III

Could be is honest.

It's not always portraying them in a negative light. If you admitted the possibility of being wrong, I wouldn't feel obligated to point out that you could be.

Every time you write "22 women can't be lying" or some variation, which denies the possibility of anything else, I disagree.

If people were claiming "DeShaun can't have done this," I'd disagree with them, too. No one has had the audacity to take this position. You, on the other hand, are not lacking in audacity.

Haha, great minds think alike.

Portland kinda communicated a point I was trying to make in an earlier post insinuating prostitution in that he asked if background was done and put out there on the accusers. It stinks of victim-blaming, but I wouldn't mind more context behind everything... especially since articles repeatedly mentioned Watson's seeming preference for non-certified therapists and going through social media.

Possibilities do not equal likelihood. Almost anything is possible. Few things are likely. As I said, if all you have to stand on is degrading and questioning the victims it speaks volumes.

The problem with your logic is that I'm not making a stand.

You're the one making a stand based on minimally supported probabilities.

I can't speak to the veracity of these alleged exchanges. If they are legitimate, I would have a hard time believing that the masseuse was expecting to give a "professional massage" after an exchange proposing a scanty outfit and including heart and rose emojis.
link

This is one of the problems with coming to any conclusion on these cases. We don't have ready access to the evidence.

It's hard to know what is legit and what is fabricated.

I don't believe that's true at all. The probability that I'm correct is much higher than all those "possibilities" you've managed to create.

Based on what?

Based on the fact you would have to find just cause to dismiss the allegations of 22 people and believe 1. Those odds are undeniable even though you seem to try and attempt they hold no credence on the daily.

What exactly are those odds? How did you come up with a number?

Those numbers are 22 to 1. Being obtuse at this juncture isn't helping you.

Those are numbers but they aren't really odds. What are they the odds of?

If those are the odds you are basing your entire position on, they are (extremely) simplistic and don't account for anything but the numbers themselves. This takes me back to my point of your "probability" being minimally supported. If the only thing you have supporting the probability is the numbers themselves, it really doesn't get any more minimal.

There's a difference between actual and minimal. No matter how much spin you put on it. Numbers are exactly what odds are determined by.

He just doesn't understand that buying 22 lotto tickets doesn't increase your odds of winning over buying 1 lotto ticket. The odds of winning remain the same.

Thank you for clarifying... Minimal and actual are different? You don't say.

When I say minimal, I mean minimal.

The Brown's have 40:1 odds to win the Super Bowl. Where did those numbers come from? What do they mean?

Odds generally aren't just based on a single pair of numbers. The numbers take into account a multitude of factors.

You act like the odds god whispered in your ear that it's 22 times more likely that Watson is lying, and that's that. That's ridiculous. Things aren't that straightforward in the real world.

Yeah, the odds of hitting the lottery is 22-1. I'm thinking you lack any understanding of what is being discussed. Buying 22 tickets to something that has maybe 1,000,000 to one odds isn't the same. But thanks for playing.

It actually does increase your odds of winning. They're still terrible, but they do go up.

His "odds" however aren't comparing identical objects, so they most likely shouldn't be weighted the same. Each individual is unique. There is evidence that supports or refutes each one's claims.

And things aren't as skewed as you're trying to make them out to be either. It's not my fault that trying to make the claim 22 people are lying and only 1 person is telling the truth is 22-1 odds. If you actually wish to consider other factors the odds would be much higher than that. Thinking that 22 people are lying and only 1 is telling the truth is claiming the almost impossible.

I haven't laid odds. I've just pointed out that your odds are bogus and/or overly simplistic.

You have no idea what the odds are. I have no idea what a good approximation of the odds are. However, I do know that your 22:1 odds are facile, and they do not adequately reflect the complexities of the situation.

22 people lying and only 1 telling the truth is quite possible. With your "logic," all the "witches" in Salem were lying.

Can anyone hear the question he answered? What previous case was he referring to?

Once again you are using a term very loosely and deceptively. "Quite possible" is a big stretch. Highly unlikely would be much more accurate.

I used the terms to their dictionary definitions. It is not impossible. Thus, it is quite (completely) possible (able to be done). 22 people are completely able to lie. My straightforward statement made no claims to probability.

Highly unlikely would be a complete guess as to the probability with no specificity (and thus little accuracy.) I'd consider that much more deceptive than my statement which is literally true.

More people saying something is the weakest reason to believe something in human history. "Hey, Galileo! Everybody says that the sun revolves around the earth, you bloody liar." Maybe you should try considering the actual evidence, or maybe something as simple as considering that you don't actually know what evidence might exist.

j/c:

One off the field thing I found fascinating was how ESPN and other media outlets were highlighting the pursuit of Watson by various NFL teams. Apparently, there were 8 teams who were after him. Four agreed to the extreme demands of the trade. Three first round choices plus more. Think about that. Four teams were able and willing to trade that much for Watson. Another four were not in position to offer that much, but still wanted to acquire him.

The commentary was all about who were the favorites. It wasn't about the compensation package because all those teams agreed to give up that much. Houston did rule out Indy because they were in the same conference. The narrative was all about which team Watson preferred to go to. New Orleans was the favorite and then some said Atlanta because Watson was from there and the town would accept him. There wasn't hardly any talk about morals in the short time that transpired once the GJ decided to not pursue criminal charges.

Then, the Browns held an introductory press conference and the local media killed the Browns and Watson. A lot of the long-time Baker apologists attacked the Browns and Watson w/questions that could not possibly be answered. They tried to get Watson to admit guilt. The remorse question was especially repulsive because why would one be remorse if one was innocent. To admit remorse would be akin to be admitting guilt.

Of course, the national media--including ESPN--recognized the bad optics of the press conference and have since changed their position on Watson and the team obtaining him. I do not believe this outrage would have occurred had Watson signed w/the Saints or Falcons. Sometimes, I think Cleveland is Cleveland's own worst enemy.

Could be the delayed ESPN reaction was due to the Cleveland media coverage having a negative tone or maybe ESPN got swift "how can you support this" type of feedback. NO way to know for sure but you are right, either this is a major moral issue or it isn't . Nothing regarding the cases changes in between that time span.

So, I've been reading up on Texas law. It has some different quirks than other states. I'm wondering if seeking barratry charges on Buzbee could be part of a valid defense strategy for Watson. link

What does quite possibly mean?
' quite/very possibly: He is quite possibly the most experienced climber in the world. Synonyms and related words. Certain or likely to happen.

When you attach the word quite with possibly your explanation doesn't stack up.

In your whacked out version of reality maybe so. Not in reality.

Inquire isn't the same as acquire.

Possible and possibly are different words with different meanings. If you change my words, you change the meaning.

You're quite possibly aware of this.

Care to explain the difference?

Texans star Deshaun Watson accuser getting death threats after going public

https://clutchpoints.com/texans-new...etting-death-threats-after-going-public/

In all of your excuse laced posts you seem to ignore that when women go public this is the treatment they receive. They risk their own personal safety to bring such allegations forward. But in your world it's "Quite possible" they're willing to risk their own life for a little cash. Highly unlikely.

Good point about "how can you support this" feedback. I didn't consider that.

Quite possibly implies a high likelihood. Quite possible implies that the likelihood is certainly not zero.

You assume that they considered the consequences. I make no such assumptions. It sucks that they get death threats, but that's the world we live in. It's often what happens when a society likes to jump to conclusions.

I also have to shake my head at your completely arbitrary highly unlikely. How did you come up with that? People risk their lives for money all the time. Further, we're not talking about a little cash. They're potentially looking at millions.

It is highly unlikely that 22 women are all willing to risk their lives just to lie about someone's sexual advances. It's not a logical conclusion. But that is the excuse all rich and famous people use to try and present their innocence. By that very standard it would mean that no rich or powerful person ever committed any criminal sexual acts. So what you are doing is repeating a tired old line every rich person uses to deny accountability. I mean only a rich person is telling the truth and all those women are pond scum, right?

Quite possible.... to the greatest extent; completely or absolutely

synonyms;

absolutely possible
certainly possible
definitely possible
distinct possibility
entirely possible
may well
perfectly possible
quite feasible
quite possibly
strong possibility
very possible
well be
all likelihood
ample room
as possible

It appears you're making things up as you go along.

Your attention to detail is lousy. "To the greatest extent; completely or absolutely" is only the definition of "quite."

I'm guessing you pulled that from here: link

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that searching for "it is quite possible that" was reduced to only quite.

I suppose your glossing over details shouldn't surprise me.

You keep trying to turn this into a case of absolutes. It's not. Any of them could be telling the truth or lying. Neither of us knows which ones are or are not. Neither of us knows the likelihood. Those are logical conclusions.

You wouldn't recognize a logical conclusion if it showed up on a stone tablet right before your eyes if it wasn't something that you already believed.

It's not I that's glossing over details. You are the one who attached the word quite to the word possible. That's exactly what qualified your position. You didn't say it could be possible, or slightly possible or that it was a possibility. Your claim was that it was "quite possible". The rest of your post has no meaning to the topic. It's just now that it has been shown you were indicating it was more likely than not possible you have nothing left to do but attack. That seems to be a common denominator these days when all else fails.

Whoever said this doesn't belong in pure football was wrong. If our QB is a predator, we should talk about it, right along with everything else we scrutinize about players. Tucking an uncomfortable problem/concern into tailgate, doesn't make it less newsworthy, it just means most on the board won't see it. Shameful.

Okay, you're right. You're not glossing over details. You're completely changing them and/or making them up and/or ignoring them. Perhaps, you're just incapable of comprehending complex ideas. You don't understand it, so "the rest of [the] post has no meaning" to you. I suppose that's not necessarily your fault.

If I ever doubted that the Dunning-Kruger effect was a real phenomenon, trying to hold a rational discussion with you has thoroughly convinced me of its existence.

I suppose the proliferation of self-proclaimed experts on the internet should have been more than enough of an indication that people think they know more than they actually know. Honestly there's evidence of people having an overinflated sense of self importance/abilities all over the country/world. Most everyone seems to see themselves as the protagonist of all the "stories" they come into contact with. They seem to think their opinion is right because they're the main character. Sadly, most people need to realize that, rather than main characters, they are really limited narrators and should just let other people's stories come to them instead of trying to fit them to how they would like them.

Everyone in this sexual assault case mess has probably twisted the story to put themselves in the best light in some way. It's not necessarily a question of who's telling the truth and who is lying. They might all believe they are telling the truth, but their perception of what the truth is may not be entirely accurate.

It's not a clear cut situation that can be easily distilled down to 2 simple numbers and ignore everything else.

"Daayumm. Somebody buy that man a cold one, he just spit fire!"

I thought I kept things pretty controlled. I don't think a drink would help.

Apparently, I should try to calm myself down. I'll try amusing myself by listening to this song I stumbled across and maybe some people will find it relevant to the topic.