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 4 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 59 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 51 minutes ago* (last edited 36 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.