4 ms·
I got there because somebody asked for evidence for a certain viewpoint and you seemed to push back against this ask by suggesting that if you ask for evidence,
by teiferer 2mo ago
I got there because somebody asked for evidence for a certain viewpoint and you seemed to push back against this ask by suggesting that if you ask for evidence, you need to demand it from both sides. As if somebody failing to do that doesn't entitle them to any evidence from anybody.
> Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so
Exactly. That's why they asked for a citation. A response providing such citation is more appropriate than essentially saying "well you didn't ask for a citation from $other_side either".
- Planktonne 2mo agoThat argument would be coherent if not for the fact that in this case, the commenter had scrolled past one unsupported set of statements, accepted them, then challenged the other set; that's not reasonable. Accepting something without evidence and only challenging things that disagree with your evidence-less beliefs is the exact opposite of even-handed.
- teiferer 2mo ago> scrolled past one unsupported set of statements, accepted them And what tells you that they were not already aware of the evidence for those statements from prior knowledge? If so, then they would naturally only ask for evidence for the claims for they are not yet aware of the evidence. No need to re-ask for that. Obviously I don't know whether they had such knowledge, but you seem to assume they didn't and are criticising them for this.
- Planktonne 2mo agoBecause as much as you attempt to weasel around it, we're not talking about a spherical hypothetical in a void. We're talking about a specific event, for which no such evidence has been released.