2 ms·

Your link does not reference the "40,000" number regarding the purported massacre at all. Your claim is that the number is "misinformation."

culi 7mo ago
This is The Guardian's investigation into Iran International. Which is the outlet that made up that number
- operatingthetan 7mo ago
  You're making a character attack on the source but not proving the claim wrong.
  - culi 7mo ago
    It's not just a character attack to point out that a glorified blog post pulled that number out of thin air. It would be silly to ask someone to prove that a made up number is made up. How can I provide evidence for lack of evidence. A more reasonable starting point would be to bring up what evidence does exist for the 40k number and then evaluate that. If you want to continue believing it, that's your prerogative. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just doing my part to counter misinformation from biased sources. FWIW, the Human Rights Activists in Iran (Virginia-based NGO) puts the figure at 6,488
    - operatingthetan 7mo ago
      It is a character attack to call into question the validity of the source in general. You did not provide evidence for your claim. You offered something else entirely. In the future it would be better to provide what is being requested instead of a distraction. I don't have strong beliefs on this, I just wanted a conclusive source. You did not provide one.
      - bigyabai 7mo ago
        > You did not provide evidence for your claim. I don't think that Iran International did either, so calling their methodology into question is fair play.
        operatingthetan 7mo ago
        The context is this conversation lol
      - culi 7mo ago
        Reread my comment. I didn't say it wasn't a character attack. I said it was more than that. Okay let's start here: could you provide a good source for the 40k claim?
        operatingthetan 7mo ago
        You made the claim it's misinformation, support your claim (as you hold the burden of proof for your own claim given it's contrary to the status quo). You haven't tried that hard, you might as well give it a real shot.
        culi 7mo ago
        I have clearly supported my claim. I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian. You have made zero attempt to support yours. The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number.
        operatingthetan 7mo ago
        >I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian. It did not address your claim at all. >The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number. No, that is not how the burden of proof works. It is not in the context of all things said in all time. You said it was false in this conversation, you support that assertion. >You have made zero attempt to support yours. I don't have a claim. You don't seem to understand the terms I'm using here so this is probably not productive to continue.

culi 7mo ago

This is The Guardian's investigation into Iran International. Which is the outlet that made up that number

operatingthetan 7mo ago
You're making a character attack on the source but not proving the claim wrong.
- culi 7mo ago
  It's not just a character attack to point out that a glorified blog post pulled that number out of thin air. It would be silly to ask someone to prove that a made up number is made up. How can I provide evidence for lack of evidence. A more reasonable starting point would be to bring up what evidence does exist for the 40k number and then evaluate that. If you want to continue believing it, that's your prerogative. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just doing my part to counter misinformation from biased sources. FWIW, the Human Rights Activists in Iran (Virginia-based NGO) puts the figure at 6,488
  - operatingthetan 7mo ago
    It is a character attack to call into question the validity of the source in general. You did not provide evidence for your claim. You offered something else entirely. In the future it would be better to provide what is being requested instead of a distraction. I don't have strong beliefs on this, I just wanted a conclusive source. You did not provide one.
    - bigyabai 7mo ago
      > You did not provide evidence for your claim. I don't think that Iran International did either, so calling their methodology into question is fair play.
      - operatingthetan 7mo ago
        The context is this conversation lol
    - culi 7mo ago
      Reread my comment. I didn't say it wasn't a character attack. I said it was more than that. Okay let's start here: could you provide a good source for the 40k claim?
      - operatingthetan 7mo ago
        You made the claim it's misinformation, support your claim (as you hold the burden of proof for your own claim given it's contrary to the status quo). You haven't tried that hard, you might as well give it a real shot.
        culi 7mo ago
        I have clearly supported my claim. I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian. You have made zero attempt to support yours. The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number.
        operatingthetan 7mo ago
        >I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian. It did not address your claim at all. >The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number. No, that is not how the burden of proof works. It is not in the context of all things said in all time. You said it was false in this conversation, you support that assertion. >You have made zero attempt to support yours. I don't have a claim. You don't seem to understand the terms I'm using here so this is probably not productive to continue.