return2ozma@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoGermany, other NATO allies sending troops to Greenland amid Trump threatswww.newsweek.comexternal-linkmessage-square99fedilinkarrow-up1470arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1468arrow-down1external-linkGermany, other NATO allies sending troops to Greenland amid Trump threatswww.newsweek.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square99fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareFerrous@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·8 hours ago Proven fake? Definitely not. Thats not how the burden of proof works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
minus-squarelennybird@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-27 hours ago Ad Ignorantiam fallacy states otherwise. “Fake” is itself an assertion requiring evidence, independent from stating neutrality, e.g., “We don’t know whether it is true or not.” Also, circular-reasoning fallacy: Who says they’re extraordinary claims within the context of what we already know?
minus-squareFerrous@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·7 hours ago Ad Ignorantiam fallacy states otherwise. What does this even mean?
minus-squarelennybird@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 hours agoAh, and therein lies the problem ladies & gentlemen.
Thats not how the burden of proof works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ad Ignorantiam fallacy states otherwise.
“Fake” is itself an assertion requiring evidence, independent from stating neutrality, e.g., “We don’t know whether it is true or not.”
Also, circular-reasoning fallacy: Who says they’re extraordinary claims within the context of what we already know?
What does this even mean?
Ah, and therein lies the problem ladies & gentlemen.
Removed by mod