If I hear something from someone I trust, I'm not going to assume it is bullshit, especially if it sounds perfectly credible.
Simply living life requires believing so much shit without evidence that it would be absurdly hypocritical for me to selectively choose when I dub things bullshit based on lack of evidence.
One either rejects everything that has evidence, or one accepts that there are things that one can believe without 100%, undeniable, hard evidence.
As for this story, I find it unlikely that someone would make up this particular story with this level of detail. Whether the original poster or whoever he heard it from. It doesn't really seem to serve a purpose, unless Mel or someone who likes him made it up to make him sound like a good guy.
Based on that and based on what my intuition tells me in this instance, I lean towards tentatively believing that the story is true.
Entertaining story, but on principle I have to believe none of what I read without reciepts
Sorry it is true. Ar some point in time you need to listen to what others say.
That is a pretty detailed story to be made up.
The drivers name was Miguel.
Rejecting everything you hear unless there is 100% undeniable evidence is no better than accepting everything you hear without evidence.
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see
In theory, sure. In practice, this is often a detrimental thing to do and depends strongly on the circumstances.
Clearly youve never been on 4chan
I'd say there is a bit of a difference with 4chan and this place.
If we were strictly talking 4chan, I'd agree with you.
Actually, it is "better" in general. Not directly related to this story, however...
Would you agree most of what you hear is bullshit?
Going off that, he is more likely correct
Depends on who I hear it from. Trust but verify.
If I hear something from someone I trust, I'm not going to assume it is bullshit, especially if it sounds perfectly credible.
Simply living life requires believing so much shit without evidence that it would be absurdly hypocritical for me to selectively choose when I dub things bullshit based on lack of evidence.
One either rejects everything that has evidence, or one accepts that there are things that one can believe without 100%, undeniable, hard evidence.
As for this story, I find it unlikely that someone would make up this particular story with this level of detail. Whether the original poster or whoever he heard it from. It doesn't really seem to serve a purpose, unless Mel or someone who likes him made it up to make him sound like a good guy.
Based on that and based on what my intuition tells me in this instance, I lean towards tentatively believing that the story is true.
So if your wife tells you its raining do you just walk out and get soaked because you haven't heard the weather forecast? Ridiculous statement