539
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
539 points (97.4% liked)
PC Gaming
8551 readers
588 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can't just move the burden of proof on to others like this. You're just spreading misinformation, even if you ultimately turn out to be right what you're doing is unproductive and harmful.
I didn’t propose to move the burden of proof? I’m just explaining I won’t be able to verify easily before Monday.
I’m unsure if I miscommunicated something, but the I’m confused by the harshness of the reply?
The issue is that you're constantly asserting your statement without evidence and when people are offering up contradictory ideas you're asking them to present evidence ("that doesn't mean that he's NOT from a billionaire family") which is shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, you have to prove it, if people put out other explanations also without evidence then they still don't have the burden of proof since the point under debate is the claim that you made. As the person making the claim you must prove it.
It's not meant to be harsh since this is a very low stakes conversation and topic but what you're doing willingly or unwillingly is exactly how misinformation spreads on more important topics, so it's important that you be aware and correct your behavior.
I don’t understand what you mean by “constantly”, I made one comment here and clarified when questioned. I prepended my comment with “as far as I know” is exactly because I wasn’t 100% sure on it.
And I only made the “that doesn’t mean he wasn’t” because they literally aren’t exclusionary conditions, and I cited an example as to why I’m stating that that wouldn’t necessarily contradicts my previous comment.
And I also immediately clarified that I messed up and didn’t mean “well off” in the billionaire sense. The example I had in mind wasn’t also a billionaire, but he was still from a rich family.
I’ve made a bunch of conditionals for my statement exactly so that is didn’t pass as you are describing, and made it clear that while I was remembering something about Gaben but I could be misremembering the specifics, which is why I mentioned I would be looking it up later, I just don’t want to do an extensive search on a cellphone. Which is just making me more confused as to your replies to me. Did you read my second comment fully? Are you mixing me up with someone else?
"a bunch of conditionals for my statements" are also known as weasel words. You don't seem interested in learning from this experience.
How were they weasel words? Honestly.
I’ve commented about something I remember but that I wasn’t completely sure on. I’ve further clarified what I meant and specified the context of it. I also mentioned I intend to verify the information but just can’t right now (I’ll be able to later today, as I mentioned).
I still don’t get why are you so aggro on me. Are you sure you are not mixing me with someone else? I still don’t get what you meant by “constantly”.