• diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.

    I don’t see any evidence or reason to think it is false. I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.

    This isn’t a response to what I said.

    You very conveniently ignored the bit in that comment where your own argument forces you to admit that you’re wrong about Stalin.

    This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.

    I get that you’re having trouble with cognitive dissonance, but this isn’t a response to “I would need evidence”.

    You still haven’t answered the question.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A possibility does not require evidence. It is a “could be”, a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.

      If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It’s how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.

      When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It’s just like someone saying “I need evidence for why the bible is false.”

      • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve unfortunately been banned from lemmygrad, so I won’t be able to see any of your replies.

        “I’ll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.” isn’t the statement of blind faith. Your stance on Stalin, ironically, is.

        While you’re wistfully dealing with our separation, please think of two things:

        • Your own argument demands that you admit your stance on Stalin is wrong. You haven’t acknowledged that for several comments now.

        • You’ve been unable to respond to my initial question because you’ll have to drop your stance. Stalin cannot both be a power-seizing maniac, and someone who begs the Politboro to let him resign. We know the one is true. Can you accept your ideas are false?