You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.

Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

At best you were going to get some tweets. Nothing might actually be better. Lol

It doesn’t bother me so much because I am pretty good at figuring out what people mean from context.

But, and this is quite judgey, it does lead me to believe the person is not much of a thinker and almost certainly not much concerned with researching to make sure what they’ve heard is actually the truth.

No, not at all. It’s one of the most incorrectly used words, usually just as a synonym for lying. This is especially egregious as it’s being used as a synonym for hypocrisy.

By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim?

It exactly resembles the logic. Which is the important part. You can argue there is more to it because religious beliefs are much more complicated, and I would agree, but you would also be agreeing with my point that the logic itself is bad.

How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

? There is only a 1 in a million chance that noone is correct. To say the only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong makes no sense because it is almost certainly incorrect.

I’m not,

? Your last argument that I responded to is literally that we shouldnt be acting like a belief is right or certain. Which was also in a chain of you accusing me of saying one must be right.

This is really going off then rails.

Yes but the validity of that “demonstration” is showing an equivalent scenario

I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

Your reduced scenario assumed one must be

Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

ALSO not be acting as if it already is right and certain

I started this whole thing by saying I lack a belief in a god because I see no evidence of one. You gotta shake the black and white thinking. Just because I recognize his logic here is garbage, that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his conclusions.

So you are ok with Op narrowing down all religions to 6 discreet choices

No one narrowed anything down to 6 discreet choices. I demonstrated a case where it is inconceivable that all people are correct, while at the same time demonstrating it is completely unreasonable to claim that no one can be correct.

op declared that one must be correct

At no point did anyone claim one must be correct.

that claims some religion is certainly right

The question “why couldn’t it be” is not even remotely equivalent to the claim that “it certainly is.”

The most reasonable conclusion is that they aren’t all correct.

1. already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be “different results” and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.

You are pointing out how a 6D dice is different than picking/defining a religion. I’m not saying they are the same thing, I’m giving you an example where just because it is inconceivable all answers are correct, that doesn’t mean no answer can be correct. There is no strawman in my argument, I’m just applying the logic to something we would all agree one.

1. we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context

This is expanding, by leaps and bounds, the argument in the OP’s image. You are now introducing a bunch of other things. Unprovable, of course. Seriously, how could you know that being correct about a religious would be “100% a matter of perspective and context”? Why couldn’t it be just objectively and patently correct? The fact that some might be partially correct doesn’t change the fact that one could be completely correct.

The argument put forth is not that the chances of them being right is small, but that because they can’t all be right, they must all be wrong. I gave a counter example that demonstrates, pretty clearly, that this logic doesn’t make sense. I’m not comparing religious beliefs to a D6, but giving a demonstration as to why the logic is bad.

Say I have 6 people all guessing a different result of a roll of a D6. It’s inconceivable that they are all right, and it’s absolutely not a “reasonable conclusion” that they are all wrong.

Additionally, if we include the people who believe they know there is no god (a position held with no proof) as a religion (which is not much of a stretch) then it’s also included in the " they are all wrong" group.

I lack a belief in a god because I’ve been provided no evidence that own exists, but the logic in this picture is full of holes.

Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.

Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?

That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it…and you’re posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving.

Because the CEOs are all more concerned with the commercial real estate market than running their company efficiently.

It’s shocking how many people have honestly bought this. I mean, I’m sure there is some truth to it and maybe somewhere, someone forced people to come back because of some real estate interests… But the CEO of Amazon almost certainly gains to benefit much more from a rise in price of Amazon stock than any real estate they might own. And even if it was the case, I dont think the board would be very happy about it.

It might be the wrong move, and maybe it is being done to get people to quit, but it’s being done because they think it means more money from Amazon.

Plenty of times I agree. However, no other game in the casino is one so heavily reliant on skill, and if you are skilled in it, it can pay off.

I generally agree, but poker is an exception where, if skilled enough, you can actually make money.

Yeah I read the rest of their response and their response to another poster calling replace theory “a fact” and realized how willfully ignorant they are. I don’t even need to know where they normally post.

Grew up right near it and certainly would not label it hillbillies. Lol it’s like a rich suburb of NYC.

I mean, I didn’t read the article,

Good, stop right there and before you go ahead and make a fool of yourself, read it.