Just lost my job coal mining. Now I am training rats to reclaim abandoned land mines. Thanks Kumala.
(media.patriots.win)
💩 SHITPOST 💩
Comments (111)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The guy’s being rude, but it is true it’s not on him to prove a point for the other side.
That doesn't apply here. Your own ignorance and laziness don't entitle you to get facts of common knowledge presented to you on a silver plate whenever you demand them.
Dogs detecting cancer is not common knowledge. It does apply.
Well, I think it is. At least to know there are several studies claiming it.
Things like that are just a quick search away (e.g. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114304.htm) which I usually prefer to showing a possibly embarrassing knowledge gap.
1.)You think, you don’t know.
2.) If it’s easy to find then it’s easier to post a source then argue about it. I especially push this hard because of how often shills will claim something retarded is obvious but never actually post a source.
3.) Even when search engines aren’t censoring results or pushing paid ones, their efforts to give more accurate results will sometimes give very different results per person. Using similar but no the same words is one way. Another is the browser logging your searches to detect a pattern to give results closer to what you want (in theory).
Either way, two people searching for the same thing can get drastically different hits. Which is another reason why telling someone to just “search for it” isn’t proper for a debate or discussion.
4.) I don’t remember if it was you or not but someone in this thread said it wasn’t on them to prove or provide sources but for the other side to disprove. That would be called Proving a Negative, which is impossible. I’d have to prove there never ever was an instance where a dog did detect cancer and/or the location of cancer.
This is another reason sourcing is required, even if logic based, because then there is a concrete tangible thing that can debated over.
No, it's up to him to prove we're wrong.
No, people asserting the fact that dogs can detect cancer are making the assertion, not anyone else. The burden of proof is on them.
Dogs and rats smelling whatever on people is a well known, publicly understood fact. It is on him to disprove this.
The assertion isn’t just plain sickness, which your statement would qualify for many mammals, but specifically cancer. Other assertions are that animal X can even tell where it’s at on the body. Those require sources.