3 ms·

I go with whatever side has the evidence. If someone says George H W Bush assassinated JFK, and yells that I am stupid when I ask for evidence, while the other

I go with whatever side has the evidence. If someone says George H W Bush assassinated JFK, and yells that I am stupid when I ask for evidence, while the other guy says it was Oswald and offers me thousands of pages of proof, I will say it was Lee H Oswald (after briefly checking the evidence.) If someone says Lee H Oswald assassinated JFK, and yells that I am stupid when I ask for evidence, while the other guy says it was George H W Bush and offers me thousands of pages of proof, I will say it was George H W Bush (after briefly checking the evidence.) There are no stupid questions, but there are billions of stupid people who do not ask questions about "settled" topics. Even worse, there are billions of people who judge others without trying to understand their point of view. I'm willing to listen to any argument, assuming I have time.

tauchunfall 3y ago
>I go with whatever side has the evidence. But what is evidence? A photo of a sea monster in a Scottish lake can be evidence. Or a NASA photo of a large face on mars. In both cases misidentification of objects is probably involved. Then there is a category of evidence that is difficult, time-consuming and/or non-intuitive to understand, e.g. climate change.
guilhas 3y ago
Normally there is evidence for both theories, the problem is the "credible" mainstream sources will only present one side of it. And that is what most people is going to believe Anything else is just a "coincidence", "planted", conspiracy", "don't confuse co-relation with causation", whatever "razor"... Epstein story has been a conspiracy for 20 years, obviously the evidence was mostly broadcasted in conspiracy channels. And what came out would be smeared, discredited, to cause uncertain around it And sometimes rightly as journalists, and families, were life threatened if they pursued the story
diogenescynic 3y ago
What about when the evidence is fake? Remember when there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq? I also think liberals/progressives like to cloak themselves in 'science' but they thought COVID risks were an order of magnitude greater than what they actually were... I think there's a huge error that they still refuse to acknowledge. Why should we trust the media when they repeatedly get things wrong and then never admit it? Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are two sides of the same coin.

tauchunfall 3y ago

>I go with whatever side has the evidence. But what is evidence? A photo of a sea monster in a Scottish lake can be evidence. Or a NASA photo of a large face on mars. In both cases misidentification of objects is probably involved. Then there is a category of evidence that is difficult, time-consuming and/or non-intuitive to understand, e.g. climate change.

guilhas 3y ago

Normally there is evidence for both theories, the problem is the "credible" mainstream sources will only present one side of it. And that is what most people is going to believe Anything else is just a "coincidence", "planted", conspiracy", "don't confuse co-relation with causation", whatever "razor"... Epstein story has been a conspiracy for 20 years, obviously the evidence was mostly broadcasted in conspiracy channels. And what came out would be smeared, discredited, to cause uncertain around it And sometimes rightly as journalists, and families, were life threatened if they pursued the story

diogenescynic 3y ago

What about when the evidence is fake? Remember when there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq? I also think liberals/progressives like to cloak themselves in 'science' but they thought COVID risks were an order of magnitude greater than what they actually were... I think there's a huge error that they still refuse to acknowledge. Why should we trust the media when they repeatedly get things wrong and then never admit it? Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are two sides of the same coin.