I scrolled right past this, scrolled back up, and then just burst out laughing. I can't articulate why, but this comment just killed me.
Your assumption that I responded in anger is incorrect. I am not angry, and it is a very rare occasion when I do get angry. Nonetheless, the nature of my response was this: you have to live by the principles you demand others to abide by, or else you are a hypocrite. I was questioning whether he actually consistently lives by the principle that he has laid down. I don't know a single human being who could still be married and still have friends if they were to consistently live by his standard. If he universally questions and demands proof when a wife or a friend speaks of the daily occurrences in their lives, then he won't have many friends for very long. That is a fact, and it doesn't mean I'm angry if I'm pointing it out. And yes a person who would do that to their friends would be giant pain in the rear to their friends. That should be self-evident to a person with basic common sense and life experience.
It is not a personal attack. I'm not saying you are a pain in the rear to be around. I'm saying I don't believe you live by the standard you are requiring of me. That was the point of the post. A person who actually consistently applied what you are asking would destroy every friendship they have ever had.
I don't know about you, but my standard for some anonymous person on the internet insisting something is true is a lot higher than a close friend I've known for 20 years, and even then I might be skeptical if the claim was fantastic enough.
This whole argument is not in good faith. You're assigning an equal requirement of proof to both of these statements: "I saw Lauren at the store today" and "Schools are accomaditing kids in full furry outfits and providing them litter boxes to poop in the classroom".
I am equating "I saw Lauren at the store today" with "There is a furry in one of my classes." I never argued anything more or less than that. And I think I'm spot on in my analysis that if your wife tells you she saw Lauren at the store today, then the standard of evidence being required by MD here would necessitate that he reject his wife's statement on the grounds of heresay because there is no proof. FWIW, no one lives like that. And that is why I called the standard ludicrous. Carry it over to a similar context and on its face it is ludicrous.
Ignoring any possible attempt to downgrade your assertions: These two statements still require completely different burdens of proof. That you saw someone you know at the store today is completely believable. Why would anyone question it? That there are kids in furries in a classroom is something that anyone that's been in a classroom recently, or anyone with kids is gonna need some serious proof before they believe that. You're taking the poster's ask for proof of the latter and trying to equate that they would require it for the former and calling them hypocrites for doing so. This is not in good faith, IMO.
It's also fun when you consider there is big overlap here with people who can't possibly conceive of the possibility that Biden won Michigan, or that masks reduce the spread of germs, or that Planet Ping Pong doesn't really have a basement ... but if you tell them that some guy told you that there are cat kids who lick their own butts in classrooms while teachers cheer them on, and they are 100% convinced from the start...
Pft. Next you’ll be telling us the earth is round and the moon landing actually happened. Do your own research, sheep.
Gatorplank is going to lose his mind (more so) after reading this. Fox News Loses Its Mind Over Cats on Campus: Kids ‘Need a Slap in the Face!’
That’s funny. I toured UCF with my son and they said they had dogs on campus that kids could schedule play time with. I know I’m not supposed to say this on the UF board, but it’s actually a pretty cool school. They had a ton of fun stuff for students.
These people are mentally ill. I ‘m pretty sure remember back in the day a couple of frats had dogs. I assume they all grew up to be douchebags (I kid) but no one complained about it 35 years ago
Treading with caution is fine the further you get away from the original source. I heard it from a primary source. You are hearing it from a secondary source. So, obviously, I will have more confidence than you do in the truthfulness of the claims I am making. Secondary sources are not prima facie outright lies, though. They still carry some weight.
I think if I came on here and insisted that someone told me their local school had enacted a system of targeted discrimination of black people, you'd probably say "where's your proof?"
I haven't read the entire thread, but Have any photos or news stories shown up from that high school?
I have to believe the litter box is a complete myth. There would be a picture of one somewhere, especially in today's digital world. As for furries in school, I'm sure some children identify as part of the culture. But being a furry is like having an alter-ego that you dress up and play, while still maintaining being human in the "real world." Sort of like some kids have a video game alter-ego, and may even dress as him/her on occasion. Doesn't mean they believe they are a video game character. This article explains that yes, some kids bring parts of their furry costumes to school on occasion. But never show up in full furry gear. And never use a litter box, like ever. So, maybe there's a kid that likes to wear cat ears or a tail at school. Big deal. They still identify as human, use the bathroom like a human too. They just like to role play as a cat when appropriate. That's the life of a furry.
If my wife comes home and tells me that she saw a bigfoot, she would be getting a few follow-up questions. Similarly, if you think your conversation about a known hoax being totally true in Gainesville is going to be accepted without follow-up questions (which you can't answer), that is a bit absurd.
