Feelings have nothing/zero to do with it. There is simply a fundamental difference between the way people defend the truth and the way people defend a hoax. I’ve observed this over a period of decades. To see an illustration, take global warming. You wouldn’t even need the facts to know it’s a hoax. Just look at the way the true believers try to destroy, slander and silence the “deniers.” That alone tells you global warming is a fraud.
People who have the truth use facts, evidence and logic. They steer clear of ad hominem bc it only interferes with their desire to set forth the factual argument for the truth. All they ask is a polite forum in which to make their case—and questions are always welcome; they provide an additional opportunity to lay out the facts.
Again, I’ve seen the methods used here tonight. Personal attacks of ‘deniers,’ have been the rule, not the exception. I’ve drawn the only conclusion possible.
Human individual variability is huge. Any group is going to have individuals from one extreme to the other on a list of variables.
People who believe in the truth will vary from one extreme regarding being loose, casual, cheeky etc. with language to the opposite extreme.
People who are talking about a hoax will vary from one extreme regarding being loose, casual, cheeky etc. with language to the opposite extreme.
Both will comprise roughly the standard bell curve with whatever subtle idiosyncratic features.
And, WITHIN group differences are much GREATER than between group differences--virtually regardless of the variable.
No, no a thousand times no. The manner in which an argument is made is no evidence of the truth or non truth of that argument. Only facts can prove a truth. Not feelings. Not emotion. Not stridency. Not a loud voice. Not a whap upside the head. None of those are evidence. Do not try to make them so.
Science