(04-21-2022, 08:57 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: To be fair, he didn't demand evidence for that, either.  

Sure I did, and I found it. You found evidence to disbelieve it. That's the exact impasse of this question, ie "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right and you have to shut up or go to jail."

---

(04-21-2022, 09:35 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote:

(04-21-2022, 08:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: These are hard questions.
They'd be less difficult to answer if you demanded evidence before you decided to believe something.
You know, the way you do with stuff you actually know about, viruses and vaccines.

I thought the debate here had become more about lying about obvious facts, not about someone's beliefs. If a journalist has outright lied about something that is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then yes they should be de-jobbed, disbarred, discredited, whatever we call it. CNN leaking the debate questions in 2016 is one example.

"Obvious facts" are not obvious. I only know what I've been told about Sandy Hook, what do you "know" and how do you know you have the "obvious facts?" The same with the Election, January 6th, the Ukraine, the WTC, the JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, all the way back to Eve eating the apple. We only know what we've been told and have almost no real basis to believe anything at all ever. And then when/if only the "official" story is permitted and dissent means imprisonment you have a perfect environment for tyranny to take all control.

---