You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.

So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

That's so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I'm telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It's literally the textbook definition of a double standard.

Your bias is so obvious, and it's also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You're no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying

And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.

Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I

Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.

Your bias is so obvious

My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Again, you're literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of "reasoning" 🤣 You don't get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that's not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.

It doesn't really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can't argue with blind faith. It seems you're not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.

I weep for our education system. I suppose it's achieved it's objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Now you're lying about what I'm saying? Your standard for "lying" is that someone says something untrue and it's hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you're a liar.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Let me dumb this down to your level.

"Double" is a word for when you have two of something.

You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

1+1=2

So, you're using a double standard.

That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.

A child could understand this. If you can't, you're either brain damaged or trolling.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 49 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago) (1 children)

That's not how logic works, dumbass. That's not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.

What you're probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn't lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you've done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn't prove anything except that you don't understand how logic works. It's not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.

But then, of course you don't understand logic because you operate on blind faith.