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.
I read from a dozen sources that is what happened, and you are telling that is wrong and I should believe you because you think it happened another way without sources as well.
Both of us think something happened, we just dont know for certain what it was nor have the actual receipts to prove 100%.
I read from a dozen sources that is what happened, and you are telling that is wrong and I should believe you because you think it happened another way without sources as well.
If you think this is what I said, then you didn't understand what I said at all.
I said you should not promote it as truth, which is what you did, and I quote:
If that is true and in a simplified sentence, why was it stopped from occurring on 911?
To think that because you read it from "a dozen sources" which I assert were all copypasta of each other, that you should go around promoting it as true when there is literally NO OTHER EVIDENCE is a bad use of critical thinking.
I never said it wasn't true.
I never said you should believe me, because I never made a statement of truth or falseness.
Both of us think something happened
Again, wrong.
I don't know what happened. What I do know is, I also have read the same thing from a dozen sources on the internet. Those sources seemed like the same source to me, all copypasta. So to me, it seemed like one source. That is what I said. That is the claim I am making. No where in that statement is a statement of it being true or false. That singular source is a random person on the internet, which is also true, so i guess I am making two statements, though one is provable, the other is reasonable speculation because all of the sources were virtually identical content.
No where in there is a statement of its truth or falseness.
What I am speaking to is the use of critical thinking and discernment of information while doing investigations of the truth in a disinformation war.
If you believe something is true because a random source said it, without the ability to corroborate the evidence, then you are doing yourself, and all other investigators a disservice, and not using your critical thinking and discernment skills to best effect.
As far as I am concerned about this topic, I don't have any idea if it is true. I keep my eyes open all the time for more information. That is because I do not believe random people on the internet just because I want something to be true. I certainly don't go around telling other people it is true when there is no corroborating evidence. Even when there IS corroborating evidence I don't go around telling other people it is true. Instead, I show the evidence.
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.
I understand completely.
I read from a dozen sources that is what happened, and you are telling that is wrong and I should believe you because you think it happened another way without sources as well.
Both of us think something happened, we just dont know for certain what it was nor have the actual receipts to prove 100%.
Time to drop it and move on okay?
If you think this is what I said, then you didn't understand what I said at all.
I said you should not promote it as truth, which is what you did, and I quote:
To think that because you read it from "a dozen sources" which I assert were all copypasta of each other, that you should go around promoting it as true when there is literally NO OTHER EVIDENCE is a bad use of critical thinking.
I never said it wasn't true.
I never said you should believe me, because I never made a statement of truth or falseness.
Again, wrong.
I don't know what happened. What I do know is, I also have read the same thing from a dozen sources on the internet. Those sources seemed like the same source to me, all copypasta. So to me, it seemed like one source. That is what I said. That is the claim I am making. No where in that statement is a statement of it being true or false. That singular source is a random person on the internet, which is also true, so i guess I am making two statements, though one is provable, the other is reasonable speculation because all of the sources were virtually identical content.
No where in there is a statement of its truth or falseness.
What I am speaking to is the use of critical thinking and discernment of information while doing investigations of the truth in a disinformation war.
If you believe something is true because a random source said it, without the ability to corroborate the evidence, then you are doing yourself, and all other investigators a disservice, and not using your critical thinking and discernment skills to best effect.
As far as I am concerned about this topic, I don't have any idea if it is true. I keep my eyes open all the time for more information. That is because I do not believe random people on the internet just because I want something to be true. I certainly don't go around telling other people it is true when there is no corroborating evidence. Even when there IS corroborating evidence I don't go around telling other people it is true. Instead, I show the evidence.