3 ms·

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

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
        You're just being silly. If someone makes a claim like "Mongolia just killed 562 students", we shouldn't be asking the person who points out that number is baseless to prove that it's baseless. We should ask the initial person to back up their claim.

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
      You're just being silly. If someone makes a claim like "Mongolia just killed 562 students", we shouldn't be asking the person who points out that number is baseless to prove that it's baseless. We should ask the initial person to back up their claim.