Breaking::: Free Eye Exam for those Willing to OPEN Theirs👀👀
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
You originally made the point that we did land on the moon, and there are no lizard people, as if it's obvious, and how dare people think otherwise. This is not the sane approach of critical thinking.
The sane approach is to always begin with the simpler default which does not require blind faith on the matter or trusting whoever you consider to be your authority. In this instance, the simpler default is that we did not go to the moon, and there are no lizard people till proven otherwise. Both of these require considerable proof to stray from the default.
If you are satisfied that we went to the moon or that there are lizard people given the proof you have seen, that is fine. However, the default should not be that the monumental task of going to the moon occurred or that super rare creatures exist if you cannot independently verify the information for yourself.
Given this, if your research on the topic has convinced you, you should not be faulting others for choosing the sane default who are unaware of the rare proof you have gathered. To put it differently, it should not be taken as obvious that we went to moon, or that lizard people exist.
Your original point that it makes more sense to assume there are no lizard people or that Joe Biden hasn't been replaced by a look alike are reasonable assumptions. However, it is not reasonable to just assume we went to the Moon because NASA says we did, and you should not be faulting people who want proof on the matter.
I get the idea , but you are incorrect. You don't need to prove what is known to be true. The burden of proof are claims that are new or contradict what is known to be true
It's also "known to be true" that Trump is a Russian asset and a racist.
Ask people for some evidence and instead of showing anything concrete, they get angry, and just expect you to know it like they do.
Not the same thing.
Care to explain how it's not the same thing?
Because saying trump is a Russian asset is a new claim. The default is that Trump is not a Russian asset. Therefore the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a Russian asset. This is why in law, the fairest method is innocent untill preven guilty, the new claim of guilt must be proven like any other claim, but the default claim of innocence does not need to be proven.