I didn't read this, so my complaint my be invalid, but it seems like that fallacy think about not being able to prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove what does exist and do that a bunch until you've got a pretty good idea of what doesn't exist, but you can't really prove that somewhere out of sight, things aren't different and that the thing for sure doesn't exist there. It's possible to prove allegations, but without hard proof of the allegations, how do you prove that they aren't just eccentrics who are innocent of the allegations, although not innocent of being eccentric, which generally isn't illegal? Anyway, despite the difficulty, I hope the truth does get proven. Well, if the truth is that they're harming people, I hope that gets proven. And if they're innocent of harming anyone and proving that they'le innocent is possible without destroying them, I hope that happens, but if they're innocent of harming anyone and "proving" the negative would destroy their lives, then I actually hope it doesn't get proven, because I wouldn't want my life ruined over false allegations just because I may be innocently different than normies in private.
Well since you didn't read this that explains why you misunderstand it. I guess I'll take my own time to explain it to you since you yourself were too lazy to find out for yourself, which then begs the question why are you here and why would you spend so much time making a long comment when you didn't want to spend the actual time to RTA. So what they say that they will do is pay you 25,000 dollars cold hard cash, if you can debunk ANY OF THE CLAIMS MADE ON THE WEBSITE. So if you can prove that John podesta didn't send the emails, you get the money, if you can prove jimmycomet never posted any instagram photos then you get 25k... there are plenty of claims there so go for it, but they are also all very solid claims so doubt anyone is collecting it any time soon. I wonder how many child slaves 25k buys...
Funny that you should so piously lecture someone, for making a philosophical point, on their apparent "laziness" while glossing over some painfully obviously details set forth in the terms of the offer:
"There is a $25,000 reward to anybody who can successfully debunk every pizzagate accusation on Pizzagate.com."
Operative word here is "EVERY" as opposed to "ANY" as you so clearly indicated in your response. A seemingly trivial detail I assure you, yet somehow oddly significant in terms of legal contracts.
The other important gaff you made was in your apparent inability to form a distinction between the word "claim" and "accusation" (within the same sentence) as the offer so unambiguously states. An accusation, by its nature, tends to have a much more limited scope and higher burden of proof than a claim and is therefor usually far easier to debunk in the legal sense.
This idea or offer, while probably well meaning, could very easily backfire and cause all kinds of unintended legal consequences because of a technicality. It is my humble opinion that the needs of this community (meaning those of us who aren't perverts) would have better been served had the author of this thread attempted to pool the resources of the community beforehand so that they could have collected the best sources and evidence before making their offer.
Thanks! My excuse is that I'm a bit stressed today, so I'm mostly just using Voat as a temporary distraction to take a bit of the edge off, so I'm kind of just writing to write, not because I'm invested in what I'm writing about. But I might have done the same even if I wasn't stressed, so it's probably not much of an excuse. In any case, thanks for reading and replying so that I could distract myself for another few minutes.
Well when you put it like that, lol! But no, I come for interesting headlines across all topics. It supposedly releases dopamine or something. It's often quite addicting, but when I'm doing well it's not at all addicting. Half mindlessly replying to comments is just part of the process, it doesn't really have anything to do with this subverse specifically, this headline just caught my eye.
Sorry -- it doesn't say ANY it says EVERY -- which is probably impossible, Reading is not much help if you don't see the big difference between any and every.
Certainly big difference, surely it's a ploy to throw a big number out and get attention. But it is attention needed and considering the underhanded tactics we have seen used against the research it seems legal to me, it's asking for the information to be proven wrong. I do like the previous suggestion that they remove any bias in the lower parts
view the rest of the comments →
varialus ago
I didn't read this, so my complaint my be invalid, but it seems like that fallacy think about not being able to prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove what does exist and do that a bunch until you've got a pretty good idea of what doesn't exist, but you can't really prove that somewhere out of sight, things aren't different and that the thing for sure doesn't exist there. It's possible to prove allegations, but without hard proof of the allegations, how do you prove that they aren't just eccentrics who are innocent of the allegations, although not innocent of being eccentric, which generally isn't illegal? Anyway, despite the difficulty, I hope the truth does get proven. Well, if the truth is that they're harming people, I hope that gets proven. And if they're innocent of harming anyone and proving that they'le innocent is possible without destroying them, I hope that happens, but if they're innocent of harming anyone and "proving" the negative would destroy their lives, then I actually hope it doesn't get proven, because I wouldn't want my life ruined over false allegations just because I may be innocently different than normies in private.
Fateswebb ago
Well since you didn't read this that explains why you misunderstand it. I guess I'll take my own time to explain it to you since you yourself were too lazy to find out for yourself, which then begs the question why are you here and why would you spend so much time making a long comment when you didn't want to spend the actual time to RTA. So what they say that they will do is pay you 25,000 dollars cold hard cash, if you can debunk ANY OF THE CLAIMS MADE ON THE WEBSITE. So if you can prove that John podesta didn't send the emails, you get the money, if you can prove jimmycomet never posted any instagram photos then you get 25k... there are plenty of claims there so go for it, but they are also all very solid claims so doubt anyone is collecting it any time soon. I wonder how many child slaves 25k buys...
thestormking ago
Funny that you should so piously lecture someone, for making a philosophical point, on their apparent "laziness" while glossing over some painfully obviously details set forth in the terms of the offer:
"There is a $25,000 reward to anybody who can successfully debunk every pizzagate accusation on Pizzagate.com."
Operative word here is "EVERY" as opposed to "ANY" as you so clearly indicated in your response. A seemingly trivial detail I assure you, yet somehow oddly significant in terms of legal contracts.
The other important gaff you made was in your apparent inability to form a distinction between the word "claim" and "accusation" (within the same sentence) as the offer so unambiguously states. An accusation, by its nature, tends to have a much more limited scope and higher burden of proof than a claim and is therefor usually far easier to debunk in the legal sense.
This idea or offer, while probably well meaning, could very easily backfire and cause all kinds of unintended legal consequences because of a technicality. It is my humble opinion that the needs of this community (meaning those of us who aren't perverts) would have better been served had the author of this thread attempted to pool the resources of the community beforehand so that they could have collected the best sources and evidence before making their offer.
Fateswebb ago
Hey, true that, my bad I did misinterpret it, and agree with the rest that you said as well.
thestormking ago
It happens.
Water_Thug ago
Wow, you read it and still managed to sound like a fucking retard.
Fateswebb ago
My misinterpretation of it when relating it to you, is certainly still more accurate than your assumptions about it when not reading it...
Water_Thug ago
Oh I read it. I'm not that other guy.
varialus ago
Thanks! My excuse is that I'm a bit stressed today, so I'm mostly just using Voat as a temporary distraction to take a bit of the edge off, so I'm kind of just writing to write, not because I'm invested in what I'm writing about. But I might have done the same even if I wasn't stressed, so it's probably not much of an excuse. In any case, thanks for reading and replying so that I could distract myself for another few minutes.
thestormking ago
Let me get this straight. You come to forums to read up on child abuse so you can take "the edge off"?
varialus ago
Well when you put it like that, lol! But no, I come for interesting headlines across all topics. It supposedly releases dopamine or something. It's often quite addicting, but when I'm doing well it's not at all addicting. Half mindlessly replying to comments is just part of the process, it doesn't really have anything to do with this subverse specifically, this headline just caught my eye.
thestormking ago
Translation: Well when you put it like that no but it releases dopamine, which is pleasurable, so yes.
I'm just glad you find child abuse so amusing and uplifting. (That's sarcasm for those of you less subtle types.)
varialus ago
Your translation is bad. Really no good. A Chinaman could do better. Just sad!
thestormking ago
Aaw. : (
Fateswebb ago
Hey man to each his own. Some might would call it precipitation theory idk...
Astrodreamer ago
Sorry -- it doesn't say ANY it says EVERY -- which is probably impossible, Reading is not much help if you don't see the big difference between any and every.
Fateswebb ago
Certainly big difference, surely it's a ploy to throw a big number out and get attention. But it is attention needed and considering the underhanded tactics we have seen used against the research it seems legal to me, it's asking for the information to be proven wrong. I do like the previous suggestion that they remove any bias in the lower parts