- Joined
- Nov 11, 2023
- Messages
- 869
Yes that’s the idea. I saw the boogeyman now I’m just trying to prove it to people who refuse to believe in the supernatural.
How does one go about doing that?
How does one go about doing that?
You could be mistaken in seeing the boogeyman. That's why proof matters.Yes that’s the idea. I saw the boogeyman now I’m just trying to prove it to people who refuse to believe in the supernatural.
How does one go about doing that?
Not all things that can't be proven didn't happen. If you met a celebrity and had no proof, did you meet the celebrity?You could be mistaken in seeing the boogeyman. That's why proof matters.
As far as history books are concerned it would be anecdotal which is a lower form of evidence to the point that it means nothing on a scientific basis. So if I said the Baha Men tour bus broke down at my house, even if my house is plausibly on their route, if there's no evidence to prove they were at my house I should not expect people to believe my word alone. That's what preponderance of evidence means.Not all things that can't be proven didn't happen. If you met a celebrity and had no proof, did you meet the celebrity?
Truth is truth. Lack of evidence does not distort what is truth. It can make proving it much harder, but anecdotal experiences are plenty real and happen everyday.As far as history books are concerned it would be anecdotal which is a lower form of evidence to the point that it means nothing on a scientific basis. So if I said the Baha Men tour bus broke down at my house, even if my house is plausibly on their route, if there's no evidence to prove they were at my house I should not expect people to believe my word alone. That's what preponderance of evidence means.
But you should not expect people to believe you without proof.Truth is truth. Lack of evidence does not distort what is truth. It can make proving it much harder, but anecdotal experiences are plenty real and happen everyday.
Yeah, I'm definitely leaning to that side, but I'd like someone to tell me what exactly is happening in Round 1. Is Cell truly only at that level and just puts up his defense, intentionally not trying to fight?Your position about Cell's fake ki falls short of adequate substantiation. Maybe you need to dig for more proof in guidebooks or something. Until then I've said my peace.
Which scene exactly?Yeah, I'm definitely leaning to that side, but I'd like someone to tell me what exactly is happening in Round 1. Is Cell truly only at that level and just puts up his defense, intentionally not trying to fight?