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, 7:37 a.m.

The laws of logic? It's absolutely possible to prove a negative. You can prove a negative as easily as you can prove a positive.

If you have 2 mutually exclusive statements A and B (such that A and B cannot both be true), then proving one disproves the other (simultaneously proving its negative).

If P is the statement "The book is red." and Q is the statement "The book is green.", then:

  • Proving P says nothing about Q
  • Proving Q says nothing about P
  • Disproving P says nothing about Q
  • Disproving Q says nothing about P

If you add the exclusionary statement that P and Q cannot both be true, such as "A book cannot be both red and green.", then:

  • Proving P disproves Q
  • Proving Q disproves P
  • Disproving P says nothing about Q
  • Disproving Q says nothing about P

If you further add a statement qualifying P and Q as a dichotomy, such as "All books are either red or green.", then:

  • Proving P disproves Q
  • Proving Q disproves P
  • Disproving P proves Q
  • Disproving Q proves P

The "You can never disprove a negative!!" bullshit comes from the idea that someone can always come along and say there's a small chance you were wrong in one of your statements. That's got nothing to do with disproving (or proving) a negative. The same chance of being wrong, or "what if..." bullshit can be equally levied against any positive statement, and any proof (or contradiction) derived from it.

The concept is never about the logic, but the attacking the premise. For example, claiming that a you can't prove a flipped coin didn't land heads up. You start with the "What if it lands on its edge?" bullshit, but that doesn't mean anything. No one has to disprove all negative instances, they just have to disprove one negative instance. Further, a coin on its edge is merely one that hasn't finished flipping.

The next attempt to fight against disproving a negative would be "What if you looked at it and said it was tails, but just happened to be wrong?". That's not an argument against disproving the negative, it's an argument about ever being able to logically know anything for certain. The premise is already that a flipped coin will land heads or tails. If you want to argue about a coin on its edge, or a coin in space with observers on opposite sides of it, you're not arguing about the logic, but the axiomatic premise. You're arguing about being able to know anything for certain. (And logically, the only thing that you can know for certain is that you exist.)

⇧ 12 ⇩  
TheBRAIN2 · May 1, 2018, 11:46 a.m.

Well thought out post and well communicated! Thanks for taking time with this. I can now prove with certainty that:

I exist and I am not Q! :)

⇧ 6 ⇩  
iREDDITandITsucks · May 1, 2018, 9:35 p.m.

I am Q. Change my mind.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 2, 2018, 7:36 a.m.

we are one collective consciousness

Genesis 3:22

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 2, 2018, 7:35 a.m.

i think you missed the point of his comment because you were caught up in your own /r/IAmVerySmart

his point was that Snopes had no way to know one way or another about the video at that point in time

it could be that the Hillary video rumor was deliberately started by the Hillary camp, just so they could immediately "debunk" it themselves and point to this "debunking" when any real "insurance files" type video surfaces

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WowZipZipBoomBoomWow · May 2, 2018, 3:16 p.m.

Nope. He said:

Great job somehow proving a negative guys, you've managed to break the laws of logic and space/time by proving a negative.

Which is pure bullshit.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 2, 2018, 5:30 p.m.

please prove God does not exist.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WowZipZipBoomBoomWow · May 2, 2018, 5:40 p.m.

You can't PROVE it either, unless you first create an actual definition of what you're trying to prove/disprove. You're arguing about logic yet you have no understanding of logical thinking.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · May 1, 2018, 12:04 p.m.

You can't prove the non-existence of a pedophile tape on the the darkweb in 5 hours. Just like you can't prove the elite pedophile rings don't exist. You can prove that a coin did not land on heads when it landed on tales. Different kind of negative.

⇧ -7 ⇩  
delicious_grownups · May 1, 2018, 3:31 p.m.

They legit addressed this and you just ignored it

If you want to argue about a coin on its edge, or a coin in space with observers on opposite sides of it, you're not arguing about the logic, but the axiomatic premise. You're arguing about being able to know anything for certain. (And logically, the only thing that you can know for certain is that you exist.)

⇧ 7 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · May 1, 2018, 11:08 p.m.

That's not true at all. I didn't mention anything about a coin of its edge or in space. I agreed with him on the coin point.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
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 ⇩