Snopes said it was false. My research is complete.

submitted by JasonCarswell from i.pinimg.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

Snopes is for confirmation bias.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Also, Snopes is for confirmation bias.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Bias Confirmed. Good ol' Snopes...

[–]CompleteDoubterII 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Avoiding Snopes to avoid your beliefs being challenged is also confirmation bias. Although I'm pretty sure it is a peddler for the official story, and is mostly wrong, still consider what it says.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Snopes is often correct, but the problem is they re-contextualize the question to a broader or narrower scope than what the original intent was, and then disprove it on that scope, while avoiding the very original intent of the allegation. So it's all factually correct, but it answers just ever so slightly the wrong question. That's my experience with it anyway

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Although I'm pretty sure it is a peddler for the official story, and is mostly wrong, still consider what it says.

It is a peddler for the officials story, and is intentionally misleading.

Their "evidence" is questionable, at best. Why should it be considered?