I have been trying to convince you that you should find some argument that actually holds water, or stop playing that your argument is sound.
In any case, you asked me to make my point, so here goes: Nothing in the post gives you enough data to claim that it’s a lie. You can say that the claim sounds implausible to you, but you cannot outright tell that it’s a falsehood, unless there is a reason to think so.
And you say the reason to think so is that someone was doing the only logical thing, and you say – for whatever reason – that it’s extremely rare to do the most logical thing in such a situation.
It’s funny how you keep dodging everything I say :)
You’re just saying “most people”. 60 % is “most people”, but that doesn’t mean you can just assume the 40% don’t exist. You’re jumping into conclusions.
And no, I don’t know if the numbers are 60 and 40, or even the other way around.
What I’m saying that you do not have enough data to be as sure about this being a falsehood as you are.
I do agree that it’s entirely possible that the story hasn’t happened, but it’s not okay to deem someone guilty of something based on a guess.
About likelihoods: if you cross a motorway on foot, you most likely will not be run over. If 10000 people cross a motorway at different places at the same moment, some of them will get hit for sure. Most will not, but that doesn’t mean that nobody will. “Most people” ≠ “everyone”. You haven’t even told where the “most people wouldn’t” comes from, but even if it did have something to it, it would still be only “most”, not “everyone” or even “practically everyone”.
Internet would be a lot better place if people did less jumping into conclusions.
You’re splitting hairs. You know what I am saying. It is unusual. I don’t need a lesson in the word “most” thank you. If you’d like to have a real discussion please leave the patronizing explanations out of it.
You’ve also got it backwards. The assumption should be that this is bullshit and that it is possible it happened. Not the other way around.
Uh, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
I have been trying to convince you that you should find some argument that actually holds water, or stop playing that your argument is sound.
In any case, you asked me to make my point, so here goes: Nothing in the post gives you enough data to claim that it’s a lie. You can say that the claim sounds implausible to you, but you cannot outright tell that it’s a falsehood, unless there is a reason to think so. And you say the reason to think so is that someone was doing the only logical thing, and you say – for whatever reason – that it’s extremely rare to do the most logical thing in such a situation.
It’s funny how you keep dodging everything I say :)
I made an argument you’re just too dug in to accept anything other than a filmed interview with the MAGAt in question.
I’ve dodged nothing. I’ve clearly explained my reasoning in multiple comment threads. You just don’t like it. That’s fine but let’s not pretend I’ve dodged just because you can’t fathom someone disagrees with you.
You’re just saying “most people”. 60 % is “most people”, but that doesn’t mean you can just assume the 40% don’t exist. You’re jumping into conclusions.
And no, I don’t know if the numbers are 60 and 40, or even the other way around. What I’m saying that you do not have enough data to be as sure about this being a falsehood as you are.
I do agree that it’s entirely possible that the story hasn’t happened, but it’s not okay to deem someone guilty of something based on a guess.
About likelihoods: if you cross a motorway on foot, you most likely will not be run over. If 10000 people cross a motorway at different places at the same moment, some of them will get hit for sure. Most will not, but that doesn’t mean that nobody will. “Most people” ≠ “everyone”. You haven’t even told where the “most people wouldn’t” comes from, but even if it did have something to it, it would still be only “most”, not “everyone” or even “practically everyone”.
Internet would be a lot better place if people did less jumping into conclusions.
You’re splitting hairs. You know what I am saying. It is unusual. I don’t need a lesson in the word “most” thank you. If you’d like to have a real discussion please leave the patronizing explanations out of it.
You’ve also got it backwards. The assumption should be that this is bullshit and that it is possible it happened. Not the other way around.