5 ms·

> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round d

by jMyles 6y ago

> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round debunking. I realize that the email headers are not available, but have the emails decisively been shown to be illegitimate? Or just difficult to verify?

dkural 6y ago
If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? No, it is on whomever is producing this to show it is in fact a real email, from a real source, and not just something they made up on MS Word to win an election, especially if they make up things a mile a minute.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? It's on him to deny it, yes. He doesn't have to prove that it's illegitimate, but if he doesn't even say so, then that's reason enough to assume it's true.
  - cure 6y ago
    Seems like there would be a bit of a risk for a personal DDOS attack by that logic? This attitude doesn't seem reasonable. Anyone can make up random nonsense about someone else (no federal libel laws in the US...). Acknowledging the nonsense will only legitimize it. Why should the subject of the nonsense have to invest time and energy in debunking/denying it?
    - jMyles 6y ago
      I'm simply looking for a more thorough explanation of the claim that "the entire spectrum of claims regarding Hunter Biden has been roundly debunked". Bubolinski, a recipient on the emails recovered from the laptop, has confirmed that those sent to him are genuine. Has that claim been debunked? If you are simply saying that the evidence isn't strong enough to say one way or another, fine. But "roundly debunked" means, at least to me, that there has been an investigation and that the factual claims have in some way been shown to be false. That, to my knowledge, hasn't actually happened. And sure, "anyone can make up random nonsense", but these claims aren't being made by "anyone", but by people with closeness to the situation that not just anyone can claim. And they aren't random nonsense; they are part of a pattern of explaining how a family has become fabulously rich on a 176k salary.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      I don't think it's too much to ask people to deny any claim made about them by, say, the four largest papers in the US, if that claim is in fact wrong.
- jMyles 6y ago
  If you are in a position to know such a thing, and you assert its veracity, then I don't think I can properly say that I have "debunked" it without actually investigating your role and showing that your assertion is false. There is a difference between a claim being unproven - and properly erring on the side of caution and skepticism - and claiming that the story has been investigated and debunked (when, to my knowledge, it has not).
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
This summarizes it fairly well https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulinski-hunter-biden-and-china-explainer/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulins...
- jMyles 6y ago
  Right - there is no evidence yet showing that Joe Biden had direct awareness of his son's corrupt dealings. That's leagues away from saying that Hunter's involvement in these things has been "debunked."
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    There’s also no evidence yet that Donald Trump wore a full body costume and pretended to be Hunter Biden while typing these emails. Guess that can’t be called debunked either. “No evidence yet disproving...” is not a standard of evidence for an extreme assertion. It’s ridiculous to act like it is. The number of logical fallacies in your reply is alarming - and most regular citizens are susceptible to these same fallacies, especially when spammed out in high production infotainment.
    - jMyles 6y ago
      I don't think your analogy fits. If someone who was known to be in Trump's presence produced a journal entry from a third party, also known to be in Trump's presence, saying, "Dear Diary, Trump wore a full body costume today...", and you then said that the sourcing of the journal had been "debunked", I'd expect something more than just the naked assertion that the journal was not legitimately sourced, with no serious investigation of the claims of the party producing it. At least two recipients of emails from the laptop have confirmed their authenticity. Now, maybe there's still some forgery happening here, I don't know. But the idea that it's made up from whole cloth is no longer plausible. Can you point me to a specific sentence in the Greenwald piece that you think is "debunked"?
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago

by jMyles 6y ago

dkural 6y ago

If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? No, it is on whomever is producing this to show it is in fact a real email, from a real source, and not just something they made up on MS Word to win an election, especially if they make up things a mile a minute.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
> If I produce a random TXT file saying jMyles is doing BIG BAD THING X, is it on you to show it is illegitimate? It's on him to deny it, yes. He doesn't have to prove that it's illegitimate, but if he doesn't even say so, then that's reason enough to assume it's true.
- cure 6y ago
  Seems like there would be a bit of a risk for a personal DDOS attack by that logic? This attitude doesn't seem reasonable. Anyone can make up random nonsense about someone else (no federal libel laws in the US...). Acknowledging the nonsense will only legitimize it. Why should the subject of the nonsense have to invest time and energy in debunking/denying it?
  - jMyles 6y ago
    I'm simply looking for a more thorough explanation of the claim that "the entire spectrum of claims regarding Hunter Biden has been roundly debunked". Bubolinski, a recipient on the emails recovered from the laptop, has confirmed that those sent to him are genuine. Has that claim been debunked? If you are simply saying that the evidence isn't strong enough to say one way or another, fine. But "roundly debunked" means, at least to me, that there has been an investigation and that the factual claims have in some way been shown to be false. That, to my knowledge, hasn't actually happened. And sure, "anyone can make up random nonsense", but these claims aren't being made by "anyone", but by people with closeness to the situation that not just anyone can claim. And they aren't random nonsense; they are part of a pattern of explaining how a family has become fabulously rich on a 176k salary.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    I don't think it's too much to ask people to deny any claim made about them by, say, the four largest papers in the US, if that claim is in fact wrong.
jMyles 6y ago
If you are in a position to know such a thing, and you assert its veracity, then I don't think I can properly say that I have "debunked" it without actually investigating your role and showing that your assertion is false. There is a difference between a claim being unproven - and properly erring on the side of caution and skepticism - and claiming that the story has been investigated and debunked (when, to my knowledge, it has not).

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

This summarizes it fairly well https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulinski-hunter-biden-and-china-explainer/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulins...

jMyles 6y ago
Right - there is no evidence yet showing that Joe Biden had direct awareness of his son's corrupt dealings. That's leagues away from saying that Hunter's involvement in these things has been "debunked."
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  There’s also no evidence yet that Donald Trump wore a full body costume and pretended to be Hunter Biden while typing these emails. Guess that can’t be called debunked either. “No evidence yet disproving...” is not a standard of evidence for an extreme assertion. It’s ridiculous to act like it is. The number of logical fallacies in your reply is alarming - and most regular citizens are susceptible to these same fallacies, especially when spammed out in high production infotainment.
  - jMyles 6y ago
    I don't think your analogy fits. If someone who was known to be in Trump's presence produced a journal entry from a third party, also known to be in Trump's presence, saying, "Dear Diary, Trump wore a full body costume today...", and you then said that the sourcing of the journal had been "debunked", I'd expect something more than just the naked assertion that the journal was not legitimately sourced, with no serious investigation of the claims of the party producing it. At least two recipients of emails from the laptop have confirmed their authenticity. Now, maybe there's still some forgery happening here, I don't know. But the idea that it's made up from whole cloth is no longer plausible. Can you point me to a specific sentence in the Greenwald piece that you think is "debunked"?
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago