The Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any proposition, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions.
If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided.
Yet that same question can/should be asked of the proof,
and any subsequent proof.
The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:
- The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
- ie: God exists because the bible says so, who wrote the bible? men who talked to an invisible God? How did they know it was God? because invisible God told them!
- The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
- where did we come from? God, How did he do that? he created us, From what did he create us? Dust, Space dust? he's always been there, been where? in heaven, what is heaven? the realm up there with God and the angels, what is a realm? is it the universe? does he exist beyond the universe? have you seen God?
- The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
LYING is wrong!
The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options. Karl Popper's suggestion was to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism.
any purported justification of all knowledge must fail, because it must start from a position of no knowledge, and therefore cannot make progress. It must either start with some knowledge, as with dogmatism(commonly accepted Beliefs), not start at all, as with infinite regress (chicken or egg first?), or be a circular argument, an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything. justified only by itself and have no solid foundation, much like the absurdity of Münchhausen pulling himself out of the mire without any independent support.
The peeping Tom stories have never made sense to me...maybe because I knew a peeper once... Or maybe I have a logical fallacy detector that goes off like sirens.
She says they( the Wells) showed up (moved in at Ben Hill) almost immediately *AFTER* one of the peeper incidents ...the dogs were missin' ....And without even an introduction yet, she thinks it was the new neighbor Don Wells? And has receipts? What receipts do peepers leave, thank you notes? (other than footprints and possibly body fluid?)?
ABOUT THAT!
She says they( the Wells) showed up (moved in at Ben Hill) almost immediately *AFTER* one of the peeper incidents (at her neighboring property hill). However according to her son Her family moved there in October 2013 (and got internet in May 2016). Don's Mother passed away in 2011 and supposedly Don and Candus were already living there at the time because she was sick and they were there to care for her.
She claims that ONE of those TWO times, she went after him and got close enough to "reached out to pull him down" but realized the kids were left alone and so she had to stop in case something happened to her.
Did she bring any sort of weapon for protection? Why didn't she at least watch to see which way he ran? what if he went in the house at the kids, while she was reconnoitering at the rear window? I would have at least tried to see where he went, or listen with my super sonic hyper vigilant ears. He's going down the rocky noisy steep hill of the driveway, you can see and hear everything from your hill...right? Did ya hear which way the footsteps ran? Did you wake up at daylight and go outside to see what the hell evidence they might have left? did you find any?
Then Andy almost caught him once, "we had to sneak him in on order produced (on order of protection?) so there it was close enough to see when he was going in now even though those .
weren't planned and scheduled never on the same time or same day or anything and they were also *well enough playing (?)*
with the property to be able to see coming ...to where I couldn't hear even when my PTSD state but I can see them and there was enough signals for me to know and then I could see them in the shed I mean these people were good whoever it was (Begin deflecting) (interviewer)but anyway um it's a really serial killer esque out there in Beech Creek they would know, that's the thing this would not even happen with the old-timers if it's state,... look this is not normal this is not, and in there. No it's not normal everywhere you would have literally been left to die until the cops come and the cops would have been like okay uh because they're very much clean up not um I mean there's no way with where that place is situated on that you're going to get help in time you better be having yourself sell some snake bite kids and um you better have the whole nine and you better know how to drive in and out of there because
you know just thinking about that day and up there uh Beech Creek it's like what child would just wander away
regardless normally they have a fear of of the unknown and they like to stick close to their parents but you know not
" ...I mean most kids here locally are raised to know how to navigate the woods." Her spiel about instilling the fear of the local wildlife in the children instead of letting them learn to respect ....blah blah blah
And then she goes on to talk about the fear of animals in the woods, and snakes, and land clearings, and black widow spiders being the most poisonous things, and her personal interactions with black widow spiders as pets, or uninvited passengers while navigating a crawlspace.. Then on to house spiders often mistaken for the brown recluse spiders. And scorpions , oh my. Lions and tigers and Bears, hephalumps and woosles!
And the interviewer ..deflects to the red car, the car door slamming, and the scream.
(DEFLECTION COMPLETE)...Doubt enough, planted, Don's Guilty of something? end of conversation? BUT, BUT!! What happened when Andy almost caught him, and you saw "them"? you saw them in the shed? were they peeping in the shed? or stealing tools to sell for meth?
This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.
Do peepers operate in unfamiliar territory other than by opportunity? (aka walking by an easily accessible house with open curtains, and a lit window)
Was it opportunistic for the new guy to go up her steep, noisy rocky hill which cars have trouble traversing? where there were dogs, and a Man/ Father living there (normally).
Is the ground cover rocky, or leafy? can you hear foot steps?? twigs snapping?
Are there other neighbors who might be interested (obsessing over her or her 5 year old daughter?) and more adept at navigating the property, and disappearing the dogs temporarily? Did Don own any of your cast off doggies when he first moved there? Had he made friends with your own dogs?
From experience I can tell you peepers are a little more careful than that. The Wells have lived there now for 11(?) years, She claims she had a close encounter, with the peeper, and Andy had one. Was it too dark to see the face? was it too dark for the perp to see his way home in a panic? not trip over things, like tricycles or rocking horses, garden statues, pet grave markers? If the perp ran off, which way did he run? down the steep driveway? or through the woods and off a cliff? and how would Don know the lay of the land at night to be so precise to peep in her/ and daughter's windows? not trip on a branch or rocks? He just moved in next door(after you were there in 2013)! OR DID HE???? so confused now!
How would Don know their routine? bed times? when the man was out of the house for any length of time? The difference between driving up the road until you get a phone signal, and taking a weekend trip to Knoxville? or whether or not the "old new neighbors" own a gun and are apt to use it, and what about the dogs did they conveniently disappear each time Donny came for a look see??
Although a big part of the "thrill" of peeping is the possibility of being caught, or getting away with it, they do not really intend to be caught. And they brag about their conquests in subtle ways. First escalations first real red flags, you are in real danger would be tapping a window or making a noise so that the victim is alert and knows they are being watched, or entering a building to peep.
FYI
If your interior house room is darker than outside you are not visible from outside. Light from outside will make you visible so stay in the shadows.
If your room is lit any lighter than outside, you are completely visible from out side.
Turn off your lights, including little night lights, and get away from the windows, stay in the shadows, maybe crawl below the window sill levels, to turn all lights off.
Go make sure all the doors are locked and bolted.
And if you happen to have a gun you might need it now,
The simple sound of a cocking gun, or a cell phone dialing, can sometimes deter further intrusion.
Do NOT run outside to engage with a peeper, especially without a weapon! or ever! you might not survive that bit of stupid, if escalation is an issue.
Ever been peeped? Anyone?
Ever caught a peeper? anyone?
Ever known a peeper and and pick through their mind to try and figure out what in the world they were doing/thinking?...anyone?
I can tell you what some peepers do-Do, is pretend they are going out of town, or for a walk in the woods, or down to the corner store.... and park the car down the street and sneak back to watch their own family? The dogs are the key....??
"While many of the country's most notorious serial killers got their start as Peeping Toms, experts say not all Peeping Toms become killers. “
Not all paraphilias are the same, and do not always intersect. Voyeurisms is Watching, even if it may lead to other actions in some offenders, for many it is just the watching(uninvited) and the risk of getting caught, many of them feel it is a victimless crime (to rationalize). The next likely escalation/ progression from voyeurisms would be exhibitionism, wanting to be seen by the victim/s
More likely to escalate to actions, on a child...is a person who views Child Porn, and has tons of pics of CP in their phones, or laptops....or their buddies who they share and distribute to. Whether they escalate to viewing on devices, or to actually stalking an intended victim online or actual sneaking and peeping, studies show that viewers of Child exploitation images are the most likely to escalate to further more heinous physical crimes.
Hey remember that time she told us her baby daddy was looking at the prepubescent girls on his phone? she found little shoes in his truck? She constantly implies with different words that the man is a sex addict (can't keep his D in his pants).
Most voyeurs seek grown women as targets because according to psychology, sexology etc, it is rooted in the oedipal complex which is triggered in early childhood trauma, with a cold unfeeling mother, or an overtly sexualized mother, a boy can't get real love from, also possibles are, early sexual abuse, early exposure to seeing a sex act. According to Freud it would be a MOM thing. Others may have had older sisters or brothers whom they witnessed in a sexual situation.. Children are not made of stone and though they do not understand what's happening it will still flood them with all kinds of feelings they will want/need to process in whatever way they can.
Just sayin' may be barking up the least likely tree ..especially with no evidence, if she has evidence why was he not charged?
