davidm wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:22 am
Right. They all "thought" that they did.
Doesn't mean they actually did.
Maybe. But it doesn't prove the opposite either. And after all, even in a court of law or a matter of historical verification, human testimony is considered one form of datum. It is not all we have, but when it is offered it must be weighed rationally, and in view of the available facts; not just ignored.
If you're frank, what it actually means is that you are conceding that you have no clue at all whether or not they did
. The reason you can't respond to my request is that, rather unsurprisingly, you absolutely have no objective data even to imply that they didn't mean what they said...you just arbitrarily choose to disregard their accounts...for reasons you'd have to explain, but no doubt will not.
Of course, while we have no reason to disbelieve your claim that you personally
have had no such experience -- for had you had it, you would surely not take the cynical and non-evidentiary position upon which you're insisting -- that does not go one tiny step in the direction of giving us reason to think you know what you're talking about when you dismiss their
accounts. So if you wanted anyone to have reason to believe you, you would surely need some stitch of evidence that they were deceived or not telling the truth.
Now again, what would your evidence in this case be?