I don’t know, I saw a YouTube video of a dog trainer who watched the video and basically said Hasan wasn’t likely to be abusing his dog, at least based off the specific video in question.
I’m not a fan of Hasan. I agree with a lot of what he has to say in regards to political matters, but I’m just not into the drama that surrounds debate bro culture in which he is a major figure.
That said, this issue with his dog is potentially a smear campaign, and there seems to be at least some credible evidence to suggest it is.
Here is the dog trainer in question. He claims to not have any political or social affiliation with Hasan, which I take at face value, but you can ascertain for yourself whether or not to believe him.
Not according to any dog trainer you’d speak to. Sorry dude, I default to experts in their fields when considering things, not just my emotional gut reaction.
But if you’re a certified dog trainer, I’d be willing to give your opinion equal consideration.
Ugh. Okay man, the expert’s opinion doesn’t matter. You win, lol.
Like I say, I’m not a fan of Hasan, as I find debate bros culture kind of distasteful, but the only way you can convince me that Hasan definitely abused his dog is to provide me with a contrary argument provided by someone who is an expert on dog training.
I’ll wait dude, seriously. Just provide me with any evidence that has a shred of credibility.
I have a thing called a conscience. It comes from inside.
Would you sequester a dog to a corner of the house 8 hours a day all for the benefit of an audience? Going so far as to shock them to the point physical pain if they try to leave?
If you say yes, I dont need a certified dog streamer to tell me youre a barbarian.
How about, why did he lie about it?
You accept he lies about it. If all is great in hasan town, why lie?
Look, you can find Hasan’s use of his dog as a prop for his streams distasteful. Heck, I’d agree with that sentiment.
But saying someone inflicted animal abuse is a serious accusation that has legal ramifications should it have occurred.
According to one account of a single expert which I provided, Hasan has not committed what I can only assume many in his field would be considered animal abuse.
You can question his credentials, you can question his legitimacy, you can question your own society’s definition of what constitutes animal abuse. Heck, you can even push your lawmakers to change the definition of what constitutes animal abuse.
But as it stands currently, it does not appear, from my admittedly very limited point of view, that Hasan committed animal abuse as it is currently defined in the laws surrounding it in the United States.
Look, I am even sympathetic to your argument, but when an expert in dog behavior is telling me this is acceptable forms of disciplining your dog, and I perceive that they are presenting their expertise in good faith, then I simply value their definitively expert opinion over the emotional reactions of overly hyped fans of one side or another in what I consider to be a toxic soup of debate bros accolades.
If you at least cannot see why I might think that, then I don’t know what else I can say to you other than I’m sorry that you feel that way.
Youre delving in too deep of water for me to address it here. I appreciate your point of view but we, as randoms on the internet, do not have to rapport to have nuanced discussion about the law behind this.
The law is very limited in what it has the ability to litigate and honestly, our laws reflect this. We would also have to discuss what constitutes expert testimony. Expert opinion is not science its just relaying heuristics.
I’ve been consistent in my assessment from the get go. If you want nuance and not just moral oral we would need to start with mutual respect. That doesnt just materialize because we exchanged messages online.
Fair enough. And I’ll at least concede its unlikely we’d come to a satisfying meeting of the minds here. Animal Abuse and what constitutes it is admittedly a somewhat complex topic that is still and probably will forever be evolving.
And it’s not like I don’t get the emotional aspect to this. I’ve had life long pets (cats, not dogs), and I hate the thought of abusing any animal. But the debate around what constitutes animal abuse ranges from people wanting to grant human rights to some/all animals all the way to poachers not giving any fucks about any animal’s well being.
This is why I do default to experts. And yeah, its some expert on the internet that I simply perceive as having put in his two cents in good faith, but I just value that opinion over so many in the debate bros space because its just an endless sea of bias in that sphere. Ironically my bias against that corner of the internet means I have a bias towards others outside of that world.
That said, I’ll still stand by my belief that an expert opinion has more value than a non expert, but that doesn’t negate your opinion that an expert’s opinion isn’t consensus and one’s individual conscience shouldn’t be considered in the discussion.
I don’t know, I saw a YouTube video of a dog trainer who watched the video and basically said Hasan wasn’t likely to be abusing his dog, at least based off the specific video in question.
I’m not a fan of Hasan. I agree with a lot of what he has to say in regards to political matters, but I’m just not into the drama that surrounds debate bro culture in which he is a major figure.
That said, this issue with his dog is potentially a smear campaign, and there seems to be at least some credible evidence to suggest it is.
Here is the dog trainer in question. He claims to not have any political or social affiliation with Hasan, which I take at face value, but you can ascertain for yourself whether or not to believe him.
EDIT: slight wording change.
I hate you
Answer one question:
Is a dog prop for streamer clout abuse?
Not according to any dog trainer you’d speak to. Sorry dude, I default to experts in their fields when considering things, not just my emotional gut reaction.
But if you’re a certified dog trainer, I’d be willing to give your opinion equal consideration.
It doesnt matter. You’ve already proved my point.
The question was did hasan shock his dog? Not only do you accept he shocked his dog, now you are completely on board with it.
Chow
Ugh. Okay man, the expert’s opinion doesn’t matter. You win, lol.
Like I say, I’m not a fan of Hasan, as I find debate bros culture kind of distasteful, but the only way you can convince me that Hasan definitely abused his dog is to provide me with a contrary argument provided by someone who is an expert on dog training.
I’ll wait dude, seriously. Just provide me with any evidence that has a shred of credibility.
I have a thing called a conscience. It comes from inside.
Would you sequester a dog to a corner of the house 8 hours a day all for the benefit of an audience? Going so far as to shock them to the point physical pain if they try to leave?
If you say yes, I dont need a certified dog streamer to tell me youre a barbarian.
How about, why did he lie about it?
You accept he lies about it. If all is great in hasan town, why lie?
Look, you can find Hasan’s use of his dog as a prop for his streams distasteful. Heck, I’d agree with that sentiment.
But saying someone inflicted animal abuse is a serious accusation that has legal ramifications should it have occurred.
According to one account of a single expert which I provided, Hasan has not committed what I can only assume many in his field would be considered animal abuse.
You can question his credentials, you can question his legitimacy, you can question your own society’s definition of what constitutes animal abuse. Heck, you can even push your lawmakers to change the definition of what constitutes animal abuse.
But as it stands currently, it does not appear, from my admittedly very limited point of view, that Hasan committed animal abuse as it is currently defined in the laws surrounding it in the United States.
Look, I am even sympathetic to your argument, but when an expert in dog behavior is telling me this is acceptable forms of disciplining your dog, and I perceive that they are presenting their expertise in good faith, then I simply value their definitively expert opinion over the emotional reactions of overly hyped fans of one side or another in what I consider to be a toxic soup of debate bros accolades.
If you at least cannot see why I might think that, then I don’t know what else I can say to you other than I’m sorry that you feel that way.
EDIT: grammar, removal of double negative.
Youre delving in too deep of water for me to address it here. I appreciate your point of view but we, as randoms on the internet, do not have to rapport to have nuanced discussion about the law behind this.
The law is very limited in what it has the ability to litigate and honestly, our laws reflect this. We would also have to discuss what constitutes expert testimony. Expert opinion is not science its just relaying heuristics.
I’ve been consistent in my assessment from the get go. If you want nuance and not just moral oral we would need to start with mutual respect. That doesnt just materialize because we exchanged messages online.
Fair enough. And I’ll at least concede its unlikely we’d come to a satisfying meeting of the minds here. Animal Abuse and what constitutes it is admittedly a somewhat complex topic that is still and probably will forever be evolving.
And it’s not like I don’t get the emotional aspect to this. I’ve had life long pets (cats, not dogs), and I hate the thought of abusing any animal. But the debate around what constitutes animal abuse ranges from people wanting to grant human rights to some/all animals all the way to poachers not giving any fucks about any animal’s well being.
This is why I do default to experts. And yeah, its some expert on the internet that I simply perceive as having put in his two cents in good faith, but I just value that opinion over so many in the debate bros space because its just an endless sea of bias in that sphere. Ironically my bias against that corner of the internet means I have a bias towards others outside of that world.
That said, I’ll still stand by my belief that an expert opinion has more value than a non expert, but that doesn’t negate your opinion that an expert’s opinion isn’t consensus and one’s individual conscience shouldn’t be considered in the discussion.
Again, all fair enough.