3 ms·
That's not what u/VictorPath wrote or meant. Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). Whereas you and I can watch the
by specialist 5y ago
That's not what u/VictorPath wrote or meant. Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe).
Whereas you and I can watch the Rodney King footage and see the plain truth that the cops beat the shit out of King without cause, there will always be quislings spreading FUD.
- parineum 5y ago> Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is sufficient for most people. Where does convincing the "fringe" come in? Is he accusing his parent of being "fringe" for noting a lack of evidence in a context where it should be trivial to gather? > It'd be cool if there was any evidence at all. > You can't convince the fringe with evidence! It's non-sequitur.