Kobe Bryant dead

Always thought that quote from him about that incident sounded odd. Suppose we'll never know for sure what happened there.

 

Your assertion was that Kobe publicly acknowledged it wasn’t consensual, I pointed out that this was inaccurate

The rest is merely your opinion/conjecture, I merely addressed the facts

 

It’s a fact that if one person isn’t consenting to *, it isn’t consensual.

 

If it were a fact, then absolutely true. We do not know what the facts were apart from the fact that they both acknowledge there was *.

To the OP, Kobe did NOT admit to having non-consensual * in his public statement - actually the contrary, that he believed it was consensual at the time

 

He also recognised that she believes she gave no consent, and, it follows, that she had grounds to make that accusation (if she had explicitly given her consent, there would be no ambiguity).

That information is pertinent to the discussion, and your decision to omit it is dishonest.

 

Was the discussion about the facts, her grounds for the accusation or drawing conclusions? No, my response was to the OP on Kobe's public statement/apology where he did NOT admit it was not consensual. He did the opposite

I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.

Logic is lost on many. Dishonest or at least disingenuous is implying I was suggesting anything else than what I have, repeatedly, pointed out. The OP was inaccurate. From there, people can draw any conclusion they care to, honest or otherwise

 

The discussion was about his statement. You claimed that he denied that it was rape. He never: he stated that he believed that it was consensual, but that he recognised that she believes that it was rape. There is a significant difference.

You can bloviate all you like; your reply was dishonest.

 

Read it again, it's only a page or two back - I pointed out that the OP incorrectly stated that Kobe had acknowledged/admitted that it was not consensual, even providing the exact statement he disseminated

You want to draw sweeping conclusions based on what you think rather than was was admitted/articulated/stated - who's being dishonest? Not me, especially since I was not in the room or part of the case. I've been on point, I don't wade into conjecture without actual details & facts like you have

 

You said that he denied it. You were wrong (at least with regard to the statement that you quoted): he said that he believed that it was consensual, but, crucially, accepted that she did not.

By definition, that is no denial (nor is it an admission of guilt). I am disputing semantics, but it is an important distinction to make.

There is no conjecture whatsoever on my part. I paraphrased the statement faithfully, and drew a single logical conclusion, which is implicit in the original statement:

Where is the logical inconsistency there?

 

Inaccurate, no surprise there as it is consistent with your attempt at trolling

I get it, you see him as a rapist but there are no facts to back this up and certainly nothing from his public statement which, again, I pointed out where he did not admit to it being non-consensual.

Indeed it is semantics but it is theoretical rather than factual making your conclusion the definition of conjecture

To label me as dishonest is merely trolling since you cannot either prove your theory or logically establish I intentionally misinterpreted his own statement. I believe in logic & theory but I can only offer an opinion based off of theory, not insist it is a fact much less the honesty of it or the lack thereof

 

It is accurate. I am not trolling.

I have never said that he was a rapist. I have no opinion on that because I have little knowledge of the case in question, and little interest in learning more about it.

I responded to your patently false assertion that the statement you posted constitutes a denial - nothing else.

Your accusations are baseless.

Try saying more with fewer words.