No you don’t. You just need to explain your reasons, and then people can make their judgement about what you said.
Okay, let’s talk. Why did multiple people all of a sudden start saying “you need proof for that,” all of a sudden, a couple of weeks ago? It’s exactly the type of low-effort, can be used to disagree with anything, statement that I think would be well-suited to being used by propaganda trolls. This is the perfect community to talk about that, I think.
Like how many times in the history of your account have you said this “You need proof of that” as a super-low-effort way to disagree with what someone said, sort of deflecting away from when they spent a bunch of multiple paragraphs explaining exactly what they meant and some of the factually verifiable reasons why they came to the conclusions that they did? Have you always said that kind of thing? Or have you said it to other people in the last few weeks? Or is this, talking to me, the first time it’s occurred to you to challenge what someone was saying in that exact manner?
Or have you said it to other people in the last few weeks? Or is this, talking to me, the first time it’s occurred to you to challenge what someone was saying in that exact manner?
It’s always been my go to when someone uses conjecture to make a claim that, if true, should have observable effects (and hence, a source). BTW I saw your update, and while that’s bad it’s (unfortunately??? fortunately???) not an indicator that the ceasefire has collapsed. The IDF likes to get in a few extra war crimes before they have to pack up and leave.
Well that depends: Is the deal real but the reason it succeeded isn’t Trump involvement? Or is it another house of cards that will inevitably collapse? If it’s the latter we wouldn’t see the Palestinian side expressing optimism, and we wouldn’t hear about the whole thing happening within the spans of a few days (a lie would be extended to buy time and give Israel an excuse when they sabotage the deal again). The fact that the deal was finalized this fast and is going to be voted on today discounts this possibility, or at least makes it unlikely, so the observable effects would include Israel delaying the vote and making up excused for why they can’t accept the deal. If Israel votes to accept the deal I think we can
In the former case we’d need a non-Trump explanation for Netanyahu’s sudden change of heart. The observable effects here would be some other change in the situation that would make continuing the war too costly for Israel or for Netanyahu personally, or some recent accomplishment that could be considered a “mission accomplished” for the IDF.
So yeah that’s it. We have an effect (the ceasefire deal) and are looking for causes, and the Trump thing simply makes the most sense to me as a cause.
We have an effect (the ceasefire deal) and are looking for causes, and the Trump thing simply makes the most sense to me as a cause.
Yes, but do you have any proof?
Honestly, my thought process here is very similar to what you just described. I looked at the situation, decided what made the most sense to me, and explained why. See how silly it is for me to ignore everything you said and just demand proof of something that, to both of us, is fundamentally unprovable in a definite logical way?
I am done with the exchange, I was just making a point and was curious how you would respond.
No you don’t. You just need to explain your reasons, and then people can make their judgement about what you said.
Okay, let’s talk. Why did multiple people all of a sudden start saying “you need proof for that,” all of a sudden, a couple of weeks ago? It’s exactly the type of low-effort, can be used to disagree with anything, statement that I think would be well-suited to being used by propaganda trolls. This is the perfect community to talk about that, I think.
Like how many times in the history of your account have you said this “You need proof of that” as a super-low-effort way to disagree with what someone said, sort of deflecting away from when they spent a bunch of multiple paragraphs explaining exactly what they meant and some of the factually verifiable reasons why they came to the conclusions that they did? Have you always said that kind of thing? Or have you said it to other people in the last few weeks? Or is this, talking to me, the first time it’s occurred to you to challenge what someone was saying in that exact manner?
It’s always been my go to when someone uses conjecture to make a claim that, if true, should have observable effects (and hence, a source). BTW I saw your update, and while that’s bad it’s (unfortunately??? fortunately???) not an indicator that the ceasefire has collapsed. The IDF likes to get in a few extra war crimes before they have to pack up and leave.
What would some of the observable effects be? If what I said were true?
Well that depends: Is the deal real but the reason it succeeded isn’t Trump involvement? Or is it another house of cards that will inevitably collapse? If it’s the latter we wouldn’t see the Palestinian side expressing optimism, and we wouldn’t hear about the whole thing happening within the spans of a few days (a lie would be extended to buy time and give Israel an excuse when they sabotage the deal again). The fact that the deal was finalized this fast and is going to be voted on today discounts this possibility, or at least makes it unlikely, so the observable effects would include Israel delaying the vote and making up excused for why they can’t accept the deal. If Israel votes to accept the deal I think we can
In the former case we’d need a non-Trump explanation for Netanyahu’s sudden change of heart. The observable effects here would be some other change in the situation that would make continuing the war too costly for Israel or for Netanyahu personally, or some recent accomplishment that could be considered a “mission accomplished” for the IDF.
So yeah that’s it. We have an effect (the ceasefire deal) and are looking for causes, and the Trump thing simply makes the most sense to me as a cause.
Yes, but do you have any proof?
Honestly, my thought process here is very similar to what you just described. I looked at the situation, decided what made the most sense to me, and explained why. See how silly it is for me to ignore everything you said and just demand proof of something that, to both of us, is fundamentally unprovable in a definite logical way?
I am done with the exchange, I was just making a point and was curious how you would respond.