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.
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.
Dude, too much text, didnt read, you just want to be right and win dont you?
Well you won a block, great job!