In fairness the burden of proof is in the other direction here, though for all I know Tucker has some?
-
-
When the presumption is made that states don't violate the rights of their citizens and citizens are forced to prove otherwise, the playing field is tilted still further in favor of Leviathan.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @big_brutha @MorlockP
Would you agree with this statement? "When the presumption is made that men don't rape women and women are forced to prove otherwise, the paying field is tilted still further in favor of the patriarchy"? Knowledge works the way it works, no matter how "fair" it may seem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Are you arguing that a man and a state are the same in either degree or kind?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @big_brutha @MorlockP
... No. I'm arguing that accepting a positive claim as even worthy of consideration without evidence undercuts your ability to think, regardless of how much power you would gain if the positive claim were in play.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We should accept that states violating people's rights is not an unusual circumstance. For Carlson to receive a judgment in a court against the NSA is a different evidentiary standard but that's not where things are yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @big_brutha @MorlockP
Shea Levy Retweeted Shea Levy
"states regularly violate rights" is true but too broad to claim that a specific agency is violating a specific person's rights in a specific way! Here's a better basis, though I doubt the claim here is that Tucker is in the same class as all Americanshttps://twitter.com/shlevy/status/1409842296196112386 …
Shea Levy added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We have to accept a claim without further evidence either way. Either Tucker's lying/mistaken/delusional (one claim) or the NSA was meddling with his communications (another.) Both claims rely on insufficient evidence at this point. Who gets the benefit of the doubt?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @big_brutha @MorlockP
I opened this with "for all I know Tucker has some", acknowledging I was not following this story. I just watched the video and his claim is explicitly based on real evidence he has. The burden of proof is on others to refute that or provide more at this point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
One possible refutation, if it's true, would be: Tucker is a regular liar on sensational issues like this and has demonstrated lack of journalistic integrity. I am not claiming this is true, just sketching out what a refutation might look like.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
that wouldn't even be a refutation - it would just lower one's priors
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @big_brutha
I don't buy the notion that you have a "prior" over all possible claims. If Tucker's word is literally worthless, there is no evidence whatsoever that the NSA is targeting him, specifically, just entertaining noise from the telly.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.