Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

scootscooterson t1_iznx3n1 wrote

Reply to comment by Applecar101 in U.S. sportswriter Grant Wahl dies in Qatar during World Cup by kieranjackwilson

What he wasn’t set out to disprove anything, very simply to add more context to what the internet investigators have suggested. The takeaway of that post was to not make assumptions, yet your takeaway was the opposite.

18

Applecar101 t1_iznxem0 wrote

Incorrect. The irony of it all is that you are “assuming” that he died of sickness… that is an assumption with partial evidence, however compelling you may THINK it is, check your assumptions. Im just saying both are plausible:)

−14

scootscooterson t1_iznxvwg wrote

Lol “incorrect” I’ll be more specific. “This doesn’t disprove anything” when he was very direct in that there’s more evidence to present. Those are different parts of a trial at the most basic of levels, presenting evidence vs suggesting conclusions.

2

mitchrsmert t1_izo3d7r wrote

I don't mean to be rude, I agree all is plausible right now, but you should aim to improve your reading comprehension. Not only did the other commenter not state that assumption, there is no way in which is was even implied. What's funny about the exchange between you two is that, ultimately, you're both on the same page about the most important point: it's all possible.

2

Applecar101 t1_izo44xv wrote

Lol the orginal remark says “seriously?” And then literally quotes the dead person after someone said it’s suspicious. He clearly disagrees with someone being suspicious about this. So in the end he is assuming no foul play took place. Tell me how is that miscomprehended? 🤪

−5

mitchrsmert t1_izo583e wrote

The comment remarks "seriously?" Because the origjnal comment strongly conveys a lack of doubt that something nefarious is the CoD. I.e., it assumes foul play. The remark "seriously?" Is in regard to that assumption. This is reinforced by the final sentence in that comment that says "don't make assumptions"

4

Applecar101 t1_izo5uzq wrote

No, that original comment doesn’t assume foul play. He literally just said it was suspicious, which means there is doubt. If you’re suspicious of something you are not saying its true without a doubt. Thats where we have different interpretations of what that means. But hey, you say I need to work on my comprehension lol way to be open to having a different viewpoint/interpretation of something. what a great guy you must be to talk to in person.

−2

mitchrsmert t1_izo7mje wrote

They said not suspicious sarcastically. Sarcasm used to emphasize the opposite opinion. Emphasing suspicion in this context is ubiquitous: it is to suggest a strong suspicion. You could argue there is still doubt and it not strictly an assumption, sure, but what is not subjective is that there is no evidence at the moment to persuade one over the other. That's the point. That's why the commenter said "seriously?"

Edit: I said no evidence, but in fact there is evidence to the contrary which is not to suggest there was no foul play, but that it's ridiculous to have formed a strong opinion already

1

Applecar101 t1_izo8tu7 wrote

Mental gymnastics only to say What I had already said. Thanks

And you had to come back to edit your already incorrect statement. Sheesb

1

mitchrsmert t1_izo9myw wrote

That rationale didn't change from my first comment, if thats mental gymnastics that just tells you're having difficulty.

And me edit was to further prove my point. Now you're resorting to just calling something incorrect as if your word is God. Good luck with that. I see you did it once already.

1

Applecar101 t1_izo9tto wrote

Mental gymnastics for you bud. Your edit actually contradicts what is right above it. There is evidence for both sides so suspicious is warranted lol

1

mitchrsmert t1_izo9wat wrote

I didn't say it wasn't, again your reading comprehension is failing you.

1

Applecar101 t1_izoab56 wrote

“What is subjective is that there is no evidence” is what you said in order to prove that suspicion was not warranted. Then edited and said there is evidence for both sides. So all in all, the original comment of something suspicious happening is correct so that changed from your original stance. Its great. We can all learn together one step at a time.

1

mitchrsmert t1_izob4k5 wrote

Again, your reading comprehension is failing you. I said there is no evidence to persuade one over the other. The circumstances warrant suspicion, but the evidence does not.

Edit: to clarify, nothing about my "stance" has changed. The rationale is the same, how you seem to be interpreting is what is volatile... which speaks to reading comprehension.

1