• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Your post is implying that my post not providing evidence is implication that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen. (The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) What other conclusion could be drawn? What was your intended message if this was not the intent? I can’t find another interpretation of your message except doubting that it happened, so perhaps you can bring light to it?

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I can’t really find anything … but I’m certain …

      I think I found the flaw in your logic.

      Holy logical overreaching, batman! My comment was just pointing out a common logical trope nowadays, being certain of something without confirming the evidence to back it up. Everything else after that ( “but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)” … “that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen”) is baggage you’ve tacked on.

      You are creating strawmans and overreaching while parting from a lack of logical rigor in referencing evidence (but at least you are honest about that last part). I don’t think I’ve read anyone who is claiming it didn’t happen, just differences on the when, where, and how, nuance that you are admitting your comment lacks.