Comment by gruez
16 days ago
>speak for themselves.
You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions.
16 days ago
>speak for themselves.
You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions.
it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true
I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever evidence "speaks for themselves", and anyone who disagrees are lunatics?
At some point you have to assume the people are, in fact, lunatics. Your argument is essentially the same as saying there is no such thing as a fact, because you can always find one person who disagrees. Someone thinking that the earth is flat and gravity isn't real doesn't make the evidence ambiguous, it makes the person you're dealing with either willfully ignorant or fucking with you.
> if people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"?
because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.
4 replies →
Original context: He was reacting to a study about chemicals in the water triggering the natural sex-change ability of some frogs.
Sooo yeah, "they're turning the frogs trans" would have been more accurate, but would have sounded even more absurd.
Do you think an officer who feared for this life would have used a casual stance with one hand on the gun and the other with a phone, then casually walked away, or would he have held the gun with two hands as trained to make sure he hit his mark?
Or maybe your point is simply that because dissenters exist that their critiques are valid? There are also people who think the 2020 election was rigged simply because a loudmouth claims it to be. They’re wrong.