And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false, but also that I had knowledge and intent that it was false. Short of a signed confession, you cannot call me a liar, because it's impossible for you to read my mind. Perhaps I thought there was proof when there wasn't. Isn't that what you're saying is true of the media, for example, with the fake news story the NYT put out? If anyone's a liar here, it's you, for accusing me of lying when you can't meet your own standard of evidence for making that claim.

There's no point in reasoning with you any more than there is in reasoning with any other religious fanatic operating on blind faith and refusing to apply reason, skepticism, and critical thinking. You've simply chosen a worse God to worship.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false

No, your new standard is "vibes". You have "vibes" that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I'm appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you're expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn't meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they'd be concerned with standards like "more likely than not" or "reasonable cause to believe" rather than the standard you're applying of, "beyond any reasonable doubt," for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. "Beyond any reasonable doubt" is only the standard for a conviction because the state's monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.

I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can't do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they're lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I'm sure that if I had presented the signed confession you're demanding, you'd dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.

So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

That's so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I'm telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It's literally the textbook definition of a double standard.

Your bias is so obvious, and it's also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You're no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 58 minutes ago

Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying

And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.

Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I

Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.

Your bias is so obvious

My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.