_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
Cross posted from Discuit
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1428 points (98.7% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5695 readers
802 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe it's real, maybe not, but it's certainly plausible.
I don't understand why so many people are eager to (metaphorically) scream "FAKE!!!!" at every story (that isn't highly unlikely) told on the internet. Sure, maybe, but does it even matter? Odds are good something like this did happen somewhere.
I heard very similar responses when conservatives were shown that Haitians were not eating dogs in Ohio.
Yes, and the difference is that facts show they are incorrect. False equivocation. "Man sells house after losing job" is not even remotely equal to "Haitians eat peoples' pets."
So, basically we know it's a falsehood because it's plausible. Saying something plausible is precisely what a liar would do!
No, I don't.
Please elaborate.
Thanks ❤️
In any case, all this is very little proof that the story is a falsehood. Obviously, by default everything you read online falls to the category "this may have happened", but that's all we really have.
Yup, because the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. But that only allows us to say the text is not necessarily true.
When you say the op is lying, that's a new claim, where the burden of proof is on you.
...although, because selling a house ASAP if you have a loan with large payments for it, is the only logical course of action if long-term unemployment is assumed, nothing to that extent has been demonstrated.
Repetition does not make an unsound argument sound.
ok…so why do I need to repeat myself…? You’re literally advocating against the thing you’re asking me to do.
Let’s also cut the bullshit and not pretend like you already knew that. You came up with this as a clever quip after you realized I’ve already talked about it. Can we please stop it with the childish games? Make your point or fuck off.
Uh, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
I have been trying to convince you that you should find some argument that actually holds water, or stop playing that your argument is sound.
In any case, you asked me to make my point, so here goes: Nothing in the post gives you enough data to claim that it's a lie. You can say that the claim sounds implausible to you, but you cannot outright tell that it's a falsehood, unless there is a reason to think so. And you say the reason to think so is that someone was doing the only logical thing, and you say – for whatever reason – that it's extremely rare to do the most logical thing in such a situation.
It's funny how you keep dodging everything I say :)
You're just saying "most people". 60 % is "most people", but that doesn't mean you can just assume the 40% don't exist. You're jumping into conclusions.
And no, I don't know if the numbers are 60 and 40, or even the other way around. What I'm saying that you do not have enough data to be as sure about this being a falsehood as you are.
I do agree that it's entirely possible that the story hasn't happened, but it's not okay to deem someone guilty of something based on a guess.
About likelihoods: if you cross a motorway on foot, you most likely will not be run over. If 10000 people cross a motorway at different places at the same moment, some of them will get hit for sure. Most will not, but that doesn't mean that nobody will. "Most people" ≠ "everyone". You haven't even told where the "most people wouldn't" comes from, but even if it did have something to it, it would still be only "most", not "everyone" or even "practically everyone".
Internet would be a lot better place if people did less jumping into conclusions.