Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 27, 2025 12:34 pm
You guys do realise there are people who have found that they can make a living out of saying controversial things and making outrageous claims, don't you? Those social media commentators and influencers, are not fussed about evidence and proof.
Maybe, but that requires an assumption. You can make that same assumption about anyone saying "controversial" things but it's basically a hand-wave and a fallacy.
What matters is who says it, for starters, and under what conditions it was said. Does this person have a certain position or specific knowledge, making it plausible that they can speak truthfully on matters within their scope? Were they paid under a condition of saying particular things versus not? And is any of this evidenced?
All of it at least begs the question of why exactly they said it. And none of this rules out that they could be telling the truth,
which has to be weighted for its significance.
Statements are often taken at face value unless evidenced otherwise, e.g. direct threats under law (notice here that the significance of what was said is factored into the urgency and seriousness of how it is handled - the same should of course apply to potential subversion or treason).