Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tanrgith t1_iyhhaow wrote

The source of those numbers are from an activist group. That's kinda like trusting green peace to tell the truth

If there are other, actually trustworthy, sources who have independently verified those claims, then I'll believe it

3

Scared-Conflict-653 t1_iyhtvo7 wrote

Exactly like the company that is producing, the product. They have no reason to lie.

1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwo5z wrote

This number isn't from the activist group though, it's from the corporate public relations team trying to bump their failed program.

Heaps of dead test subjects, but they cherrypick one group that had an abnormally high survival rate [perhaps the control subjects; installation but no functionality?]

1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwiv1 wrote

The numbers are from corporate public relations teams pushing misinformation regarding the survival rate

1

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhhubt wrote

Somehow I doubt you'll accept any evidence that counters your opinion.

0

tanrgith t1_iyhid7u wrote

Well, you're wrong on that

edit - Actually, you're right. Because my opinion is literally just "I don't really trust some small activist group lead by a guy accused of cherry picking data, so I'd want to see the claim verified by a reputable source before believing it"

7

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhixwp wrote

You won't ever accept any evidence that contradicts your hard-held beliefs.

−6

tanrgith t1_iyhj81k wrote

That's what I said, yes.

My "hard-held beliefs" in this case being "have a reputable source verify it and I'll believe it"

7

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhjrxr wrote

No, you won't.

−2

tanrgith t1_iyhsxmc wrote

You know, somehow I doubt you'll accept any evidence that counters your opinion

3

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhtdfd wrote

What evidence?

0

tanrgith t1_iyhtppr wrote

Damn, that either went way over your head or you're just being purposefully obtuse

2