If I care to know more I will.
Ignoring the 'fun factor', I meant.
I don't particularly it fun debunking others. But I get what you mean. I'm still listening.
If I'm researching it myself, "I don't see any reason to assume they are wrong" while I know little about the presented subject.
The premise was that you were assuming that the person is wrong, for any reason.
Suppose they told you that they came to this conclusions by looking at the stars and it popped into their head or because their grandpa once said something completely irrelevant and they inferred it must mean that the nazis bombed the moon in 1946 but Roosevelt destroyed the evidence. Or perhaps you believe TC is a liar and therefore, after a certain point, you would be inclined not to research every one of his accusations here but instead conclude he's probably lying again (not saying he is, but you get the gist). Take your pick. Is there any rationale they could give that would convince you that they are most likely wrong? Use that as a yardstick.
I hear you, but I'll take the time to say I know TC is a liar, he's proven to tell lies as a way to slander others. He did it to me, and he's doing it to you right now, perverting your intent toward Peach and Alice, with a friendly welcome back thread. Don't see why he wants to do you like that.
You tried being his friend, he rends you. That being said TC isn't the best example cause I'm sure of him, but I still understand what you mean.
Supposing the above, and ignoring what it would take to convince you that the person is most likely wrong or whether your view of what is good epistemology differs from mine, would you research the subject if you believed the person had got it wrong from the outset and you'd thus most likely be wasting your time? Again, regardless of whether or not this is a fair characterization and ignoring the 'fun' factor: Suppose you believed that.
Again, I'm not saying these examples are even remotely comparable to what you're doing, but the premise is that you are convinced that the person is in all likelihood wrong.
Sometimes I let things go if I see someone is wrong. Take LiYang for example, he's right about some things, but wrong in how he deals with others and his findings. He's also become trigger happy with a short fuse on top of endlessly sending the same old message.
For every bad there's a little good, I gave some credit to Justin and he wanted to make me out to be a sheep over that out of his resentment and bias, yet I'm satisfied with the conditions of legalization policy, though unhappy with him on the most part. Despite that, I'm not too motivated to react to him seemingly issuing taunts, cause that in itself is a learning experience.
To more accurately answer your inquiry, and I probably mentioned this, but if I had reason/motivation to counter someones claim, then I would deliver the counter data myself, and not wait for the person who I think is wrong, to self correct.
What convinces me the other person is wrong, is when I'm a witness to the buried truth in the matter.
TC for example legit wanted me to agree with him that I doxxed and hurt many visitors. He was very insistent about that in a vague manner, not naming a single name, except Jim's sister who Jim doxxed, and I don't remember her name.
There are those who'll blindly follow TC and to them the burden of proof is on me as long as TC has them fooled. I can't respect the intelligence of those who think he's bright. I'm forced to think little of them.
Eventually someone created a thread about it, and TC slithered and dodged the question for his bold claim. The burden of proof is truely on him, but if you ask me that's fine, I know the truth, while others here know the truth. At this point it's amusing, and the future is brighter while TC is known to be as he really is.
It wasn't an assumption on my part, and while 2 of us had different claims, there are witnesses who never saw me dox anyone ever.
To top it off, TC doxxed my family, extended family, posted everyone's number with the same last name as me from a phone book. Doxxed businesses etc. I know who his parents are and I seriously had no intention to seek revenge.
I get by standing my ground and holding true to my values, while the petty, wishes them and I traded places where I were like them, and vice versa, that's satisfying enough to me.
That's how I am. I don't care if someone wants me to write in their format, or demands I do things they way I want. In this case footage of the hemp bodied car, running on hemp with Ford himself present is "cherry picked" and insufficient. I must still somehow proove it's even possible, and prove that big oil wouldn't switch to selling something even a child can grow and how and why that is.
The Law of Supply and demand.
The reply is chatty, but in general, yes at times I have doubts. And when I do, I'll look into myself.
This is more productive, than wasting time demanding my will from others, and expecting them to write a textbook.
In my experience, if someone demands you fetch more dara thsn you provided or else you'll look bad, and they themselves present nothing, then they either never bothered to do any research, or they cherry-picked the opinions of others, and keep their findings up their sleeve waiting to knock you down.
My message, since you find debunking fun, skip the horseshit and move on with it. Otherwise you'll annoy the wiser.
