I have read it on several websites as well. They seem copypasta. I have seen no corroborating evidence to support those claims. None. Only a bunch of websites that don't provide any sources.
If there is no evidence, then I do not give random claims credence. We are in the middle of a disinformation war. Many of the websites that are off beat give bad information. Not all, but any that do not provide any sources, or even any clue to find a source, are imo worthless, and not to be trusted. In fact, I consider it likely that they are to be distrusted unless corroborating evidence can be found.
There are just too many things out there designed to make us belief falsehoods to discredit real information. I think this is likely one of them. If you have actual evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Well I thought it happened too, so it looks like we both think, but dont have an actual source of what actually happened then either way then. Thanks anyways.
You are saying that you think something happened, but you have no evidence to support it.
I am saying I don't think something happened, because there is no evidence to support it.
There is a HUGE difference between those two statements.
In a court of law, if there is no evidence to support a claim, it is tossed out. It is what we call a fantasy.
That doesn't mean the fantasy is not true, but it is clearly a fantasy since there is zero evidence to support it except the words of a random person on the internet.
It would be like me saying, I heard a guy on the street corner say that he is sure that on Dec. 28 1999 a pig flew over the White House. He does not have pictures to support it. He has no other witnesses to support his claim, he merely says it. I could then come here and say in response to someone else, "if that were true, then why did a pig flew over the white house on Dec. 28 1999." You could say, "where did you hear it?" And I would say, "a guy on a street corner said it."
In this case I would be making a claim for which there is no evidence and is altogether completely unlikely. You saying you don't believe it, because there is no evidence is good critical thinking and the use of discernment. Me believing it because a guy on a street corner said it, without any corroborating evidence is bad use of critical thinking and discernment.
They are two very distinct states.
You of course a welcome to believe whatever fantasy you want to believe, but if you want to investigate the world in the middle of a disinformation war, you should probably choose good critical thinking and discernment over bad.
That doesn't mean that you should dismiss it as not true. I highly recommend keeping an eye out for corroborating evidence, but to suggest that it is true is a poor choice in investigation.
And you believe that because...
Because I have read that on several different several websites, even the one below these comments from CavePeasant’s link.
Did that not happen? And what was the real story since you are implying it is a lie?
I have read it on several websites as well. They seem copypasta. I have seen no corroborating evidence to support those claims. None. Only a bunch of websites that don't provide any sources.
If there is no evidence, then I do not give random claims credence. We are in the middle of a disinformation war. Many of the websites that are off beat give bad information. Not all, but any that do not provide any sources, or even any clue to find a source, are imo worthless, and not to be trusted. In fact, I consider it likely that they are to be distrusted unless corroborating evidence can be found.
There are just too many things out there designed to make us belief falsehoods to discredit real information. I think this is likely one of them. If you have actual evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Well I thought it happened too, so it looks like we both think, but dont have an actual source of what actually happened then either way then. Thanks anyways.
No. You misunderstand.
You are saying that you think something happened, but you have no evidence to support it.
I am saying I don't think something happened, because there is no evidence to support it.
There is a HUGE difference between those two statements.
In a court of law, if there is no evidence to support a claim, it is tossed out. It is what we call a fantasy.
That doesn't mean the fantasy is not true, but it is clearly a fantasy since there is zero evidence to support it except the words of a random person on the internet.
It would be like me saying, I heard a guy on the street corner say that he is sure that on Dec. 28 1999 a pig flew over the White House. He does not have pictures to support it. He has no other witnesses to support his claim, he merely says it. I could then come here and say in response to someone else, "if that were true, then why did a pig flew over the white house on Dec. 28 1999." You could say, "where did you hear it?" And I would say, "a guy on a street corner said it."
In this case I would be making a claim for which there is no evidence and is altogether completely unlikely. You saying you don't believe it, because there is no evidence is good critical thinking and the use of discernment. Me believing it because a guy on a street corner said it, without any corroborating evidence is bad use of critical thinking and discernment.
They are two very distinct states.
You of course a welcome to believe whatever fantasy you want to believe, but if you want to investigate the world in the middle of a disinformation war, you should probably choose good critical thinking and discernment over bad.
That doesn't mean that you should dismiss it as not true. I highly recommend keeping an eye out for corroborating evidence, but to suggest that it is true is a poor choice in investigation.