[canarypilot]

Gosh, what an argument! We can make hay from that position!

It is certain that some people on the placebo course of many randomised drug trials improve against the stated condition, so we ought not to completely disregard placebos as a viable treatment for many illnesses! Are you saying that not a single placebo has ever impacted the outcome of a medical trial any way, even if just from the psychological benefit of imagining you are being treated? I’d like to see your proof.

Horoscopes, I’m certain some portion of them come true!

Certainly kernels of truth exist in the origins of the majority of world religions, and even many super hero origin stories; we ought not to dismiss the possibility all of those are (simultaneously, regardless of contradictions) legitimate!

I can’t fathom what logical high ground you thought you were taking with this comment, but you ought to spend some time reflecting on whether it lives up to any sensible values of critical thinking.

I suggest holding to the ideal that the burden is on those making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we’ll all be worshipping our spaghetti.

[dude187]

The overall discussion is regarding censorship though. Censoring everything you deem a "lie" without meeting some arbitrary barrier of truth leads to bad outcomes

[canarypilot]

People have become deeply confused between censoring and censuring. They feel bad when told their opinions are unwelcome and consider it an act of silencing, rather than an act of reprimanding. Calling something a lie and choosing not to engage with it is an act of censuring; and you can disagree with my barrier for when to censure you. Preventing you from speaking the lie is censoring.