return2ozma@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 hours agoGermany, other NATO allies sending troops to Greenland amid Trump threatswww.newsweek.comexternal-linkmessage-square61fedilinkarrow-up1350arrow-down11
arrow-up1349arrow-down1external-linkGermany, other NATO allies sending troops to Greenland amid Trump threatswww.newsweek.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 hours agomessage-square61fedilink
minus-squarelennybird@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 hour agoUnverified? Yes. Corroborating some of what we already know? Also yes. Proven fake? Definitely not. That is unless you are to believe the word of Republicans and Trump.
minus-squareFerrous@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·56 minutes ago Proven fake? Definitely not. Thats not how the burden of proof works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
minus-squarelennybird@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-211 minutes 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-up1·9 minutes ago Ad Ignorantiam fallacy states otherwise. What does this even mean?
The Steele dossier was a fake.
Unverified? Yes. Corroborating some of what we already know? Also yes.
Proven fake? Definitely not. That is unless you are to believe the word of Republicans and Trump.
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?