The fact that lies can be repeated has no relevance on my position that this sentiment is repeated because it's true. If you want to argue with the statement, produce an argument instead of an unrelated sarcastic comment.
So you claim that something being repeatedly posted is a useful signal to determine if it's true, but you only apply it to something that you already believe is true.
But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's something you personally don't know is true or believe is false. How does that make any sense?
Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
> you claim that something being repeatedly posted is a useful signal to determine if it's true
No I don't, you dolt. Learn which way the implication goes. "It is repeated because it's true" means something very different to "it is true because it's repeated". Here's an analogy of this conversation so you can understand how stupid you sound:
> Have you considered that he might be dying because he has cancer?
>> Can't argue with that, my granddad died and he didn't have cancer.
> The fact that people can die without having cancer has no relevance on my position that this person is died of cancer. If you want to argue with the statement, produce an argument instead of an unrelated sarcastic comment.
>> So you claim that someone dying is a useful signal to determine if they have cancer, but you only apply it to people who you already believe have cancer. But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's someone you know doesn't have cancer. How does that make any sense? Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
Can people die of cancer? Can something be repeated because it's true? Who knows.
The fact that lies can be repeated has no relevance on my position that this sentiment is repeated because it's true. If you want to argue with the statement, produce an argument instead of an unrelated sarcastic comment.
So you claim that something being repeatedly posted is a useful signal to determine if it's true, but you only apply it to something that you already believe is true.
But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's something you personally don't know is true or believe is false. How does that make any sense?
Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
> you claim that something being repeatedly posted is a useful signal to determine if it's true
No I don't, you dolt. Learn which way the implication goes. "It is repeated because it's true" means something very different to "it is true because it's repeated". Here's an analogy of this conversation so you can understand how stupid you sound:
> Have you considered that he might be dying because he has cancer?
>> Can't argue with that, my granddad died and he didn't have cancer.
> The fact that people can die without having cancer has no relevance on my position that this person is died of cancer. If you want to argue with the statement, produce an argument instead of an unrelated sarcastic comment.
>> So you claim that someone dying is a useful signal to determine if they have cancer, but you only apply it to people who you already believe have cancer. But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's someone you know doesn't have cancer. How does that make any sense? Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
Can people die of cancer? Can something be repeated because it's true? Who knows.
3 replies →