And there’s the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false
No, your new standard is “vibes”. You have “vibes” that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I’m appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you’re expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn’t meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they’d be concerned with standards like “more likely than not” or “reasonable cause to believe” rather than the standard you’re applying of, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn’t have to prove “beyond any reasonable doubt” that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. “Beyond any reasonable doubt” is only the standard for a conviction because the state’s monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.
I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can’t do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they’re lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I’m sure that if I had presented the signed confession you’re demanding, you’d dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.
You didn’t present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That’s part of lying, and I don’t dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You’ve presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you’re a liar, because you’ve said some things that are not true, so I’m just going to assume that you know they’re untrue and you’re lying.
That’s so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I’m telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn’t lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It’s literally the textbook definition of a double standard.
Your bias is so obvious, and it’s also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You’re no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.
Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn’t lying, and neither am I
Apply my rules and we don’t know if the media is lying, but there’s no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it’s unreasonable to say they’re lying. As for you, who knows.
Your bias is so obvious
My bias? You’re the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
Again, you’re literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of “reasoning” 🤣 You don’t get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that’s not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.
It doesn’t really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can’t argue with blind faith. It seems you’re not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.
I weep for our education system. I suppose it’s achieved it’s objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.
Now you’re lying about what I’m saying? Your standard for “lying” is that someone says something untrue and it’s hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you’re a liar.
No, your new standard is “vibes”. You have “vibes” that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I’m appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you’re expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn’t meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they’d be concerned with standards like “more likely than not” or “reasonable cause to believe” rather than the standard you’re applying of, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn’t have to prove “beyond any reasonable doubt” that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. “Beyond any reasonable doubt” is only the standard for a conviction because the state’s monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.
I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can’t do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they’re lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I’m sure that if I had presented the signed confession you’re demanding, you’d dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.
You didn’t present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That’s part of lying, and I don’t dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You’ve presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you’re a liar, because you’ve said some things that are not true, so I’m just going to assume that you know they’re untrue and you’re lying.
That’s so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I’m telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn’t lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It’s literally the textbook definition of a double standard.
Your bias is so obvious, and it’s also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You’re no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply my rules and we don’t know if the media is lying, but there’s no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it’s unreasonable to say they’re lying. As for you, who knows.
My bias? You’re the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
Again, you’re literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of “reasoning” 🤣 You don’t get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that’s not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.
It doesn’t really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can’t argue with blind faith. It seems you’re not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.
I weep for our education system. I suppose it’s achieved it’s objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.
Now you’re lying about what I’m saying? Your standard for “lying” is that someone says something untrue and it’s hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you’re a liar.
Let me dumb this down to your level.
“Double” is a word for when you have two of something.
You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.
You use another standard when looking at whether I’m lying.
1+1=2
So, you’re using a double standard.
That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.
A child could understand this. If you can’t, you’re either brain damaged or trolling.
Yes, I’m using your standard when looking at whether you’re lying, and I’ve determined you’re lying.