3 ms·

>Your claim IS FALSE Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young p

>Your claim IS FALSE Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of secret lizard people? Or slightly less facetiously, Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of 9/11 being an inside job? This is your assertion? Don't let me put words in your mouth, you tell me. Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories

mistermann 4y ago
> Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made. Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE. If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there? >> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that Moving on.... > Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories I would enjoy hearing: a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories? b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?

mistermann 4y ago

> Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made. Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE. If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there? >> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that Moving on.... > Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories I would enjoy hearing: a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories? b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?