Cross posted from Discuit

  • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.