upvote

points

by smcg16 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby teiferer14 hours ago|
next
[-]
How is that better? If true then that would be an even clearer war crime.
reply
upvoteby elictronic15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That doesn’t make much sense based on Irans own statements. Three Tomahawks yes. The strikes were reported as being in quick succession. 4 parents were reported as killed and 100+ kids and nearly 30 teachers. Basically it killed the teachers and little kids. No attempt at the responding parents like you incorrectly imply.
reply
upvoteby reducesuffering15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
citation needed
reply
upvoteby Planktonne15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why only ask for citations of one side's claims?
reply
upvoteby CursedSilicon8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If someone says "the sky is blue" and someone else says "actually the sky is polka dots!" are you going to ask for citations from both?
reply
upvoteby Planktonne3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In that case I wouldn't ask for citations from either, because I have direct evidence.

But with two competing claims, and no easy way to check ground truth, you absolutely ask for citations from both sides. There's nothing rational about uncritically accepting the narrative you heard first.

reply
upvoteby reducesuffering15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because the other side is the general informed consensus for which multiple sources are readily available for me to find. I have seen nothing to indicate this side, hence I'm asking for any evidence, because I don't see it. Either could potentially be correct, but I don't think they're equally probable.
reply
upvoteby Planktonne15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
To the extent there is a consensus here, it's not an evidence-based one; it's entirely founded on untested statements made by people who have both a track record of lying and incentive to do so.

Demanding evidence from one party while accepting the word of the other is not even-handed.

reply
upvoteby teiferer14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And how is the corollary from the argument you just presented that neither side needs to provide evidence? Let's start by actually having evidence for "your side", then you can demand evidence from the other.
reply
upvoteby Planktonne14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> And how is the corollary from the argument you just presented that neither side needs to provide evidence?

It's not. I have no idea how you got there.

The right thing is to seek evidence for both perspectives. This is ironically not rocket science. Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so, but especially don't pretend to sneering objectivity when you do so.

reply
upvoteby teiferer14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I got there because somebody asked for evidence for a certain viewpoint and you seemed to push back against this ask by suggesting that if you ask for evidence, you need to demand it from both sides. As if somebody failing to do that doesn't entitle them to any evidence from anybody.

> Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so

Exactly. That's why they asked for a citation. A response providing such citation is more appropriate than essentially saying "well you didn't ask for a citation from $other_side either".

reply