Thanks. I will. And YOU can go ahead and belive the Democratic Oligarch without evidence.
Difference is, I am not believing the Biden admin. Zuck made the claim something happened, Zuck has to provide proof that thing happened. This is the burden of proof. So you are believing a claim without evidence, I am holding judgement until I get some. The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.
“You need proof to believe a claim? This isn’t as court of law. Your critical thinking skills suck if you don’t understand this is just a baseless accusation I want to believe.”
It is also ok to ask for proof, and challenge people’s statements, is it not? Cause this is some big “It was only a joke, you take things too seriously” energy. If you don’t want people to express their opinions, about your opinions, you need to not make them public.
It is also ok to ask for proof, and challenge people’s statements, is it not?
Sure. Just as it’s ok to believe someone based on the reality of things and how things work without having to ask for proof or challenge people’s statements.
Hey if you wanna live a life, where every time someone talks to you says something and you cry, “Proof! Where’s the proof? I’m not gonna believe you till I see proof!” Go right ahead. That’s your right.
If you don’t believe Zucker, then you don’t have to. I totally respect your right to that opinion. I just don’t share your opinion.
And that’s ok. I believe him. You don’t. Cool. I also think he’s an annoying little prick. And some people don’t. That’s ok.
I think he’s telling the truth. Many others do too. But you are totally free to disagree. Thanks!
Difference is, I am not believing the Biden admin. Zuck made the claim something happened, Zuck has to provide proof that thing happened. This is the burden of proof. So you are believing a claim without evidence, I am holding judgement until I get some. The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.
It’s a fucking interview for an article. There is no “burden of proof.” It’s not a court case. lmao
The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.
“I believe what this guys claims”
“I need some proof to believe him personally”
“You need proof to believe a claim? This isn’t as court of law. Your critical thinking skills suck if you don’t understand this is just a baseless accusation I want to believe.”
Dude, it’s a news article. Not a court disposition. Calm your tits.
I belive him. You don’t. It’s ok to have a different opinion. Thanks!
It is also ok to ask for proof, and challenge people’s statements, is it not? Cause this is some big “It was only a joke, you take things too seriously” energy. If you don’t want people to express their opinions, about your opinions, you need to not make them public.
Sure. Just as it’s ok to believe someone based on the reality of things and how things work without having to ask for proof or challenge people’s statements.
Hey if you wanna live a life, where every time someone talks to you says something and you cry, “Proof! Where’s the proof? I’m not gonna believe you till I see proof!” Go right ahead. That’s your right.
If you don’t believe Zucker, then you don’t have to. I totally respect your right to that opinion. I just don’t share your opinion.
And that’s ok. I believe him. You don’t. Cool. I also think he’s an annoying little prick. And some people don’t. That’s ok.
I think he’s telling the truth. Many others do too. But you are totally free to disagree. Thanks!
If you just want have your opinion, and not have people questioning it, all you have to do is not make it public.
You can question it all you want. I posted because I thought it was interesting. I don’t have to defend why I posted it tho. Thanks!
You don’t, yet here we are