Hobthrob

No problem:

First of; here’s where I primarily source my definitions from, just so you can read along. But you can find similar wording elsewhere.

Now, quoting just your latest reply where you deny using ad hominems-

“dumb-dumb,” “dumb idiot liar,” “babybrain,” “stupid dumbass fucking bullshit lies,” “only fucking morons would believe…”

These are all “Abusive ad hominem / name-calling” because they target my intelligence, character and credibility rather than my claims.

“Let me know when you have a fourth … piece of evidence so I can take your argument seriously”; “you keep trying to high road lies”

Here you’re “Poisoning The Well” by trying to discredit any future claims or arguments I might bring.

“hope you get that Israel money or whatever you’re in this for”; “like a foreign agent”

Here you’re applying a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem” by bringing in something irrelevant to the discussion, and sprinkling it with some “Bare Assertion Fallacy” given that you’ve given no basis for assuming that I’m allied with Israel or any other foreign power.

regurgitate … from your master”; “Israel money”; “foreign agent”

Here you’re imploying the “Guilt by Association / Bias And Hominem” fallacy by discredit anything I say based on the same previous “Bare Assertion Fallacy”.

You are doing a fallacy where you think my calling you a dumb idiot liar somehow negates all the points…”

Here you’re abusing the “Tu Quoque / Appeal To Hypocrisy” fallacy by trying to claim that I do not understand the fallacies I mentioned, rather than engage with the actual points. It’s also fallacious because my appeal to toning down the personal attacks on your comments came after I responded to your actual points.

You also employed a few other non-ad hominem fallacies: a Straw man, an Appeal to Ridicule, A Red Herring / Irrelevant Conclusion as well as general Bullying / Intimidation (which is rhetorical and not strictly logical).

And that was just in this last message.

To clarify the first point:

The representative from the company did say the prongs seemed to have been improperly removed, and that the hole left behind by that seemed to have been covered in black tape, likely to protect the dog from the uneven edges that would have left behind. He also said he found that strange as they sell a replacement part for that purpose, which hadn’t been installed.

And that indicated, to me, that once the shocking incident gained traction, Hasan scrambled to quickly put the collar in front of the audience but without the prongs. He knows people have been able to see the collar for months and would potentially recognize if he changed it, so he thought he could cover up the modification and claim it never had the shock prongs.

But it bring up questions to me:

Why would he have to improperly remove the prongs if not to hurry to show it to his audience without them?

If he had plenty of time why wouldn’t he have just gotten a new one instead of modifying the old one? And if time wasn’t an issue (because he had to quickly try to avert suspicion) why didn’t he get and install the replacement part meant to have it safe for Kaya, post prong-removal?

I would say everything I’ve laid out is internally consistent: Kaya was wearing a shock collar, whether he shocked her or not in the famous clip is not relevant to my claims, but he got a lot of heat and attention to Kaya’s collar from it, and felt he had to prove it wasn’t a shock collar, and of course he’d know he’d have to do it quickly otherwise it would look suspicious. So he quickly modified it and taped over the now rough edges, either to hide the modification or to protect Kaya, or both.

Add to that that he changed his story, starting by vehemently claiming it wasn’t a shock collar, and then, once some people found the model of it, changing that to it being a shock collar that could no longer shock.

That’s internally consistent to me. Now, the only actual thing we know is the model of the shock collar and that it was modified, that the collar was way too tight and that Hasan changed his story when the model of the collar was identified.

Everything else is speculation, which is why I don’t lead with that, but everything to the contrary is equal speculation and I just find that it has way less purchase with the above facts in mind.

On another note: I don’t know why you’re so quick to go ad hominem? I’m not attacking you or your character, and I’m engaging with you earnestly, taking in your points and responding to them reasonably.

How is someone supposed to respect your points if you make yourself so hard to respect?

A collar with vibration and shock is a shock collar. A collar without shock but is a vibration collar.

The representative from the producer of the collar, that image and video evidence match, indicated that the prongs had been improperly removed and the opening taped over, instead of using a padded replacement cover for the underside, which they also sell. Indicating a rush job to hide the shock prongs.

Hasan has also had a guest who commented on the collar being very tight (“can’t even fit one finger” was the quote), which would make sense for using a poorly fitted shock collar, which this one would be indeed.

So my claim is that Hasan used a poorly fitting shock collar. Maybe because he bought the wrong one or because he used one he already had, and he had to over tighten it to get it to somewhat work. And that he used a shock collar on his dog.

Hasan also changed his story several times as well. He started by claiming it wasn’t a shock collar, to them later claiming that it was a shock collar but that he had the prongs removed. I believe he changed it further, but those are the most relevant I believe.

If you bring sources all the time, why won’t you adhere to your own regular standard now?

Why do I have to follow an example you won’t set for me?

That’s quite the angry rant. I’ll try to filter out the personal attacks and focus on the substance.

You can claim that the collar would be a bad fit for Kaya and I’d agree, but the images taken from Hasan’s own streams make it hard to claim that it isn’t the Educator RX 090.

You could claim he might be better served with a vibration collar, which is what Hasan changed his story to, but this one is shock capable, and there would be no reason to buy a shock capable collar unless you intend to use the shock capability.

But my claim is that he used a shock collar on his dog, not that he used one that was a good fit for shocking his dog. That’s moving the goalpost, if not an outright straw man.

I don’t recall hearing a loud beep when it went off, but feel free to bring evidence to the contrary and I can use your standard of evidence to dig further.

You can go on a tirade about evidence but it doesn’t get much more concrete than stills or clips from Hasan Piker’s own streams.

And to clarify: I do not find animal abuse minor, and I certainly think shock collars are animal abuse. But that’s also trying to move the goalpost, once again.

If you want a different standard than what it’s currently set you can lead by example, rather than with ad hominems.

There’s literal pictures take from Hasan’s own stream, and e-mail conversation with a company representive that recognizes the product. I chased down the image and found it to be verifiable. While I cannot very a private email I could verify the company and the product and match it to the image.

I don’t care where the evidence is, I care that it is verifiable in so far as it can be, and I could verify the majority of that blog post, which is more than you’ve been able to give me.

Again, no AI used in any of my work, but feel free to keep riding that ad hominem as far as it’ll take you.

So you claim.

This is the exact game that DGG orbiters play and I wasn’t born yesterday.

What game do they play? I don’t know, but it would seem good if I could recognize it, so feel free to elaborate.

Currently I don’t see how they are relevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t believe I’ve ever commented on anything relevant to Destiny, DGG, Dan Saltman or anything related to that. They’ve come up during my own research into Hasan Piker, but my research has been isolated to him and his behaviour, so I’ve not really chased down any of these side-tracks. It seemed entirely irrelevant to what Hasan Piker does.

I told you I’m not going to take you seriously anymore, it’s pointless when you’re playing dumb.

I am not playing dumb - I have been upfront with what I do and do not know about.

Trying to claim you have no idea what Hasan’s politics are while you are talking about Hasan in a political community is asinine.

On a non-politics related post, related to Hasan Piker’s non-political lawsuit, in a reply-chain that started with someone asking about Hasan Piker, not his politics. And I’ve admitted to not having dug enough into his political beliefs to comment directly on it, for better or for worse. That’s being forthcoming with the limits of my knowledge. I shouldn’t need to be an expert on a person’s political beliefs to comment on the non-political aspects of their life. That would be an unreasonable standard for participation and not one broadly supported by how the Fediverse (or any other social media) works.

Claiming that you couldn’t find any link between Destiny and Hasan is similarly asinine.

I didn’t claim that. I claimed that link was irrelevant to anything I was talking about.

Having 0 sources for any of the bullshit you’re claiming is asinine.

I bring sources when someone asks and engages with the substance of what I actually write. When are you brining your sources, or engaging with what the words and points I am actually writing and making?

Claiming that it’s just too hard to source your claims is also asinine.

Are you going to keep riding that strawman? That’s not what I said. I said it is too time-consuming and that it is also a different standard than the general standard of the place of conversation. Hence I only bring sources when it seems worthwhile to me. The quality of your engagement has not met my subjective threshold for using my limited time on re-finding my sources from weeks and moths ago That’s all.

You gave the game away.

I am still unsure what game it is you think I am playing. I guess you think I am connected to Destiny or Dan Saltman? Feel free to find any modicum of evidence, other than, what? vibes? I don’t know much about them; I haven’t researched them; I don’t engage with them or their community/communities(? given that there’s several people); and I don’t spend a lot of time watching streamers at all, unless I am looking into something very specific and then I am focused on that specific thing, not all the rest of the noise.

I wasn’t expecting an actual debate, but since you’ve accused me of being bad faith: You’re making huge leaps and assumptions of me based on nothing (non sequitur fallacy); You’re not engaging with the substance of anything I write (Ignoratio elenchi fallacy with a sprinking of a strawman or two); while simultaneously trying to dismiss me based on things like misspelling a name, and trying to paint my attempt at intellectual honestly about the limits of my knowledge of irrelevant subjects as as proof of bad faith (a few different ad hominems, including irrelevant ad hominem fallacy) Based on this I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

It’s fine if you want to back away from the discussion. At first I though that perhaps your passion/hostility on the subject was related to the veracity of any of the points in my posts, but it seems to me that you are Marge Simpsons and he’s your potato, and you just find him neat - no further thought needed.

But yes, I agree that both of our time would be wasted if that’s all you’ll do with it.

Yep. Feel free to criticize the actual approach the person took or try to disprove it though. I don’t really care where things come from, if the method is good.

I mean, I already told you about my mild dyslexia, so I’m not sure why you’re fishing for a deeper meaning there. I literally misplaced 2 letters of two very similar sounding and spelled names - that’s it.

I also read the write up you linked on him, so it’s not like I confused his person with Sam Altman.

It really feels like you’re just trying to discredit and dismiss me wholesale based on anything. Well, anything except any evidence or fully-formed argument.

I don’t really care about whatever rumours were spread, I saw Hasan’s own videos, I heard him change his story and I saw the modified collar he showed, and I linked an evidence-based little investigation based on Hasan’s own videos in another comment. There’re no logical leaps or excuses involved or needed, and whatever rumours Saltman spread has nothing to do with the evidence I saw from Hasan’s own stream.

Eh, it’s a bit of a mix of mild dyslexia and previously alliteration for memory. I’ve got some level of ADHD/ADD so I’ve had to build up some interesting ways to remember things, but sometimes it misfires.

I’ve corrected it where I saw it, but given that Saltman was irrelevant to the original points I made, I don’t really think misspelling his name has any bearing.

But it’s interesting if you consider misspelling an unrelated name enough reason to dismiss substantive points. That would indicate that you’re looking for a reason to dismiss without engaging with the substance.

Is that true, and if so, why?

Yeah, my bad. I got the spelling of the names confused and then the wrong name stuck. I’m aware that you’re talking about Dan Saltman, and that was also who I was thinking of at the time.

A quick Google tells me DGG is shorthand for Destiny’s audience - is that correct?

If so, then no. He’s come up in my research into Hasan Piker, but I haven’t dived very deep on him, and it’s not on my current priorities, but I do see a lot of focus on both him and Sam Altman in the replies, so perhaps I do need to check that and see if there is anything of substance there, besides online feuding.

I’ll admit, I’m not entirely sure what an orbiter is exactly. When I look it up it references streamers “orbiting” larger streamers, but I don’t think that would apply here given that I’m not a streamer (nor particularly invested in any).

I’m sorry to hear that you won’t be engaging further. I’d still love some relevant refutations of my actual points if you ever decide you want to engage in the future. All the best to you in the meantime.

Yes, I see that Hasan Piker is mentioned, and I see that there’s a history between Sam Altman.

But that has no relevance to anything I’ve written, unless you think that all criticism of Hasan Piker must originate from Dan Saltman, and in this case by proxy of me.

Is that the connection you’re trying to draw?

Edit: Dan Saltman / Sam Altman

I mean, if you were not going distill the information you could have saved yourself the effort and just given the link.

Thank you for the link though, even if I don’t see the relevance to the subject.

Why did you give the link and then copy the whole contents as well? That seems very redundant.

I don’t see how Dan Altman is relevant to any evidence I’ve brought fourth - I didn’t use him as a base for any of my evidence, nor reference them in any claims. Can you tell me how he’s relevant to the subject at hand? (Hasan Piker)

Edit: “Dan” instead “Sam”, partial typo and partial "slip of the tongue"due to the similarity of their names.

I am not particularly well-versed in those guys, so I can’t speak to their findings, but at a cursory glance I don’t see a link between anything I’ve linked and them - I am happy to be corrected if there is something I’ve missed.

However, until you bring any kind of evidence, I will rely on Hitchen’s Razor here: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”

That is untrue. If the shock collar has the wrong types of prongs or if it is poorly fitted, it might not reach the skin well enough to make constant contact meaning that at some presses it wouldn’t work very well, but you can get models that will make contact even with thick fur.

You can’t simply dismiss the point without willfully, or otherwise, ignoring how shock collars do and do not work.

Now, based on the video where Hasan Piker gave us the best look at the shock collar, the best match would be the Educator RX-090, as confirmed by their own support team. Feel free to check this link, scrolling down to the section named “What the manufacturer’s support says”. The whole article gives a decent rundown of the evidence as well, but it’s a longer read.

This particular model might be an “extra poor” choice for Kaya given that Tibetan Mastiffs do tend to have doublecoated furs with a thick, whooly undercoat, but that is a common mistake people make when buying shock collars.

He’s not a particularly well-known figure outside of streaming platforms, but I’ll quote a previous post I wrote to give an attempt at a rounded impression of him. It’s from another thread so there’s some parts of it that might look a bit less relevant to this one, but here it is:

"I think everyone who knows some about him will have an opinion on him - I’d call him divisive. I’ll try to give a relatively neutral rundown - I’m not a historian or researcher on this subject so my knowledge is likely to have holes.

I don’t have time to treat this like a dissertation or adding citations, but I’ll try to present things as neutrally as I can and then you (or anyone else reading) can decide to further research any of the points as you see fit. I am not the final authority on this, just someone who’s dug a little more into this than the average person, and who has no strong feelings for or against the person in question.

He is a political twitch streamer. He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates. He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not. He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.

He appears to be well-versed in U.S. electoral politics, media framing, and progressive political arguments, which tracks with his bachelor’s degree in political science and communication studies from Rutgers from 2013. Being a streamer he ends up talking about a lot of related subjects, in which he often has to give off-the-cuff opinions and takes, which can often fall well-short of informed or accurate.

He says his end goal is communism. He got his start as a content creator in his uncle’s online news channel (The Young Turks), before later splitting off from them and doing his own streaming business. He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle. He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar. Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores. He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes. He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD. While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.

He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about. He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with. The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base. From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances. He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.

He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.

He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.

As said, feel free to research each of these points, but do be critical of the sources of information and try to just find the actual evidence of what was done or said, rather than peoples’ conclusions. He is divisive so when people give their take they usually either dismiss all the criticism and focus on the things he does well, or dismiss the things he does well and focus on the criticism.

Find all the evidence you can and make up your own mind."

Now, as for this case it looks like Hasan Piker is substantially more correct than Scott Jennings. Snopes did a good write up of the evidence, so I’d recommend looking at that directly, if you care about the issue.