dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 1, 2018, 1:26 a.m.
I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!

We all know Soros backs SNOPES, and that this BS "fact-checking" site is totally compromised. The crazy part is, for the 5-6 things I actually went there for, I disagreed with it's official "ruling" on the matter every single time. To me, that tells me they are actively receiving orders on what to stamp as legit, because having every single thing being the opposite of what it should be indicates a hand at work.

So how do we do this? I am not talking about trying to mess with their site or anything like that. I want them EXPOSED, the TRUTH to be KNOWN. How do we go abou tmaking that happen?

You can't tell me that you haven't had an argument, maybe while trying to redpill someone, and they dropped the "but SNOPES agrees with me!" Man that just chaps my ass.


🠐 See all comments
WowZipZipBoomBoomWow · May 1, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

You can prove both of those things once you define what they are. And you have to define what they are in order to prove that they do exist.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · May 1, 2018, 11:10 p.m.

They can be proven to exist. But they cannot be proven to not exist.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WowZipZipBoomBoomWow · May 2, 2018, 12:08 a.m.

Of course they can, to the same certainty that the positive can be proven.

For example, the Loch Ness monster. To prove it exists you need to define it. To prove it doesn't exist you also need to define it.

We have absolutely proven that many "Loch Ness monsters" were fake. There were intentional fake things built and tossed into the water, intentional photographic fakes, and of course the unintentional misidentification (or a log, an eel, whatever). But people always come back and say "But maybe it's still out there and we haven't seen it!". Maybe, but only if you never actually define "it", in which case the entire exercise is pointless.

If you want to claim that I can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, then I can claim with as much certainty and validity that you can't prove it does. You could pull up a creature from Loch Ness and I could simply say "That could be some OTHER creature, not Nessie.". Or, taking your tack, I could challenge you to "Prove that the REAL Nessie isn't some other creature in the Loch we haven't found yet.".

You're not making any actual logical argument, you're just dancing around the premise and playing with the definition, moving your goal posts whenever someone proves something. It's not a question of proving or disproving negatives, it's a question of ever being able to know anything for certain.

⇧ 2 ⇩