this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1413 points (98.6% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

5537 readers
1489 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross posted from Discuit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

ok…so why do I need to repeat myself…? You’re literally advocating against the thing you’re asking me to do.

Let’s also cut the bullshit and not pretend like you already knew that. You came up with this as a clever quip after you realized I’ve already talked about it. Can we please stop it with the childish games? Make your point or fuck off.

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Uh, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have been trying to convince you that you should find some argument that actually holds water, or stop playing that your argument is sound.

In any case, you asked me to make my point, so here goes: Nothing in the post gives you enough data to claim that it's a lie. You can say that the claim sounds implausible to you, but you cannot outright tell that it's a falsehood, unless there is a reason to think so. And you say the reason to think so is that someone was doing the only logical thing, and you say – for whatever reason – that it's extremely rare to do the most logical thing in such a situation.

It's funny how you keep dodging everything I say :)

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I made an argument you’re just too dug in to accept anything other than a filmed interview with the MAGAt in question.

I’ve dodged nothing. I’ve clearly explained my reasoning in multiple comment threads. You just don’t like it. That’s fine but let’s not pretend I’ve dodged just because you can’t fathom someone disagrees with you.

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

You're just saying "most people". 60 % is "most people", but that doesn't mean you can just assume the 40% don't exist. You're jumping into conclusions.

And no, I don't know if the numbers are 60 and 40, or even the other way around. What I'm saying that you do not have enough data to be as sure about this being a falsehood as you are.

I do agree that it's entirely possible that the story hasn't happened, but it's not okay to deem someone guilty of something based on a guess.

About likelihoods: if you cross a motorway on foot, you most likely will not be run over. If 10000 people cross a motorway at different places at the same moment, some of them will get hit for sure. Most will not, but that doesn't mean that nobody will. "Most people" ≠ "everyone". You haven't even told where the "most people wouldn't" comes from, but even if it did have something to it, it would still be only "most", not "everyone" or even "practically everyone".

Internet would be a lot better place if people did less jumping into conclusions.