I have a rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's real!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence. that is the final confirmation necessary that it is, in fact, not real.
I'll now be adding a new rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's a psyop!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence, that is the final confirmation that it is, in fact, not a psyop.
I think my simple point was that claims made without any supporting argumentation should be immediately discarded. So instantly posting yet another one as some sort of support for the previous? An notable display.
I seem to be having quite a lot of trouble getting these ideas through. Maybe these ideas are not as simple to others as they appear to me.
I have a rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's real!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence. that is the final confirmation necessary that it is, in fact, not real.
I'll now be adding a new rule that if someone is reduced to claiming, "It's a psyop!" without immediately supplying supporting evidence, that is the final confirmation that it is, in fact, not a psyop.
Neat. But, yeah, their 'dispute' is BS.
I think my simple point was that claims made without any supporting argumentation should be immediately discarded. So instantly posting yet another one as some sort of support for the previous? An notable display.
I seem to be having quite a lot of trouble getting these ideas through. Maybe these ideas are not as simple to others as they appear to me.