Not much to add. But interesting how standards are handled differently when it concerns the other side.
15,000 (or 20,000) Haitians. The official position is “we could not verify what Trump said”. And I agree, it is difficult to verify.
It is difficult to establish and verify that “not a single person” among 15-20k people has done it.
It is ok to say that they were not able to verify the statement, but here, the lack of verification is used in reversal.
We were not able to verify the claim, hence the claim must be wrong.
That is a fallacy.
Science would say: it is not verified yet, but keep researching to find a way to verify it... and in some cases it takes decades to verify a postulated claim. Thus, unverified does not equate to being wrong.
Did they interview each of the 15-20k Haitians to debunk Trump’s claim?
But even then: would the person admit that he/she ate a pet?
Trump’s statement was bold, but officials rush to debunk it was even bolder.
"This is something that came up on the internet, and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes," Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said on Thursday.
So now the internet can be “crazy”. But did they also say that when the internet made bold statements about Trump?
So the reasoning that the internet can be “crazy” is used for one side but not the other.
Fallacies and junk in the media.
Stay alert and discern the different standards.
This case it is not about whether immigrants ate pets, goose etc or not, this case it is about fallacies in the media.
Why would any country that's not suicidal import violent unveted invaders and make the citizens pay for it?
Not much to add. But interesting how standards are handled differently when it concerns the other side.
15,000 (or 20,000) Haitians. The official position is “we could not verify what Trump said”. And I agree, it is difficult to verify.
It is difficult to establish and verify that “not a single person” among 15-20k people has done it.
It is ok to say that they were not able to verify the statement, but here, the lack of verification is used in reversal.
We were not able to verify the claim, hence the claim must be wrong.
That is a fallacy.
Science would say: it is not verified yet, but keep researching to find a way to verify it... and in some cases it takes decades to verify a postulated claim. Thus, unverified does not equate to being wrong.
Did they interview each of the 15-20k Haitians to debunk Trump’s claim?
But even then: would the person admit that he/she ate a pet?
Trump’s statement was bold, but officials rush to debunk it was even bolder.
"This is something that came up on the internet, and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes," Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said on Thursday.
So now the internet can be “crazy”. But did they also say that when the internet made bold statements about Trump?
So the reasoning that the internet can be “crazy” is used for one side but not the other.
Fallacies and junk in the media.
Stay alert and discern the different standards.
This case it is not about whether immigrants ate pets, goose etc or not, this case it is about fallacies in the media.