dChan
Anonymous ID: 452c25 Jan. 19, 2021, 6:55 p.m. No.12618646   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8692 >>8912

>>12618472 (/lb)

You made the POSTIVE assertion that it's fake.

 

You never remained neutral and it would have only been in that way that you can demand I prove it.

 

But you fucked up, you added a new claim that it's fake.

 

Therefore, you have the burden to prove your positive claim that it's a fake.

 

Fuck you're an illogical retard. By your logic there would be no art appraisals, no signature verifications, or the modern scientific method all of which is based on the principle of disproving a null hypothesis of "theory is wrong" or in this case "meme is fake".

 

If someone posted a meme that the sun rises in the east, and another anon called that meme 'fake', it would not at all be wrong to demand that the Anon who accused it of being fake to prove their claim it's fake.

 

You IMMEDIATELY replied accusing the meme as fake, which proves you never did any research to verify your beliefs prior to replying.

 

The burden isn't on me to prove your claim of fake is false, the burden of proof is on you for your claim you nazi.

Anonymous ID: 452c25 Jan. 19, 2021, 6:58 p.m. No.12618709   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12618592

Q#4881

Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 10/17/2020 12:36:26

https://twitter.com/stinchfield1776/status/1317450311192223746

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'.3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?

DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?

Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].

You are correct, CJ.

Retweet @ 17:17 had meaning. [mathematical probability _17:17 [day after]?]

Do you believe it was a coincidence surgical removal of You Tube accounts occurred same day as 'Hunter' drop?

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Q

Anonymous ID: 452c25 Jan. 19, 2021, 7:13 p.m. No.12619039   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9059 >>9078

>>12618692

>The positive assertion thata fake tweetis fake?

 

And now you have the burden to prove it's fake.

 

If you walked into The Louvre and said the painting of the Mona Lisa is fake, you would have the burden to prove it's fake.

 

MAKING AN ACCUSATION INSTANTLY PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED

 

I know I ALSO have a burden to prove it's real. I never denied this. To recognize you have a burden to prove it's fake does not negate anyone else having a burden to prove their positive claims.

 

Where your mind is making the error is conflating an absence of seeing proof it's real, with the totally different and non sequitur claim that it's fake.

 

You do recognize the possibility that a claim without corresponding OBSERVED evidence at that time and place, could erroneously be accused as wrong or fake, right?

 

I'm not going in circles, you are. Your question "The positive assertion that a fake tweet is fake?" is your own circular rhetorical question, not mine.

 

You cannot be honest when you ask me to prove it's real when you have already asserted your conclusion it's fake.

 

You can't have a world where it's both real and fake. So, if you have already made a conclusion, you can't honestly ask the question you're asking.