“Yet you believe her story, despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. Seems legit. Nothing at all like the lefties who believed Blasey-Ford despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. There is absolutely no reason to believe you might be taking O’Brien’s story on faith simply because she accuses people who you are already ideologically opposed to.”
That’s not an entirely bad point. The difference is context. We know Blasey-Ford’s history. Her testimony does not add up. Cavanaugh has an impeccable track record.
The Clintons do not. Mysterious deaths. Rape. Coverups. Overt criminal activity. Look at Hillary’s history voluntarily defending the man who raped a child and then nearly beat her to death. She laughs about that “interesting” case in which she attacked the credibility of the girl, essentially claiming the girl wanted it. Books have been written, literally, about Clinton corruption. But there is a mystery as to exactly how they have been able to avoid being punished for their crimes.
The answer you don’t seem to want to believe is that they are part of a cabal of psychopathic criminals who conspire (there is that word) together to cover up their crimes and operate with impunity. Within this criminal world are those who use the occult (whether they believe it gives them supernatural power or just embrace the ideology), human trafficking, torture, rape, and murder (including ritual sacrifices). It is about money, pleasure, power, and mind control.
If you had the choice to allow your daughter to spend the summer with the Cavanaughs, would you be afraid for her safety and wellbeing? How about with the Clintons? Honestly?
“Yet you believe her story”
I listen and evaluate what people say.
I hear you, and I don’t believe you.
You don’t believe me.
Fine. I’m not offended. You don’t know me. I don’t know you.
You seem to have a strange filter for who you believe—at least strange to me. It makes me wonder if you really doubt the credibility of these stories or if you are being disingenuous for some other reason. Maybe you have some trust issues from being tricked as a child. Who knows?
Bottom line, we are at an impasse. So, let’s agree to disagree and move on. Okay?
“Cavanaugh has an impeccable track record.
The Clintons do not.”
Exactly. You’re already predisposed to want to believe anything bad someone says about them, so when O’Brien comes up with her story with zero evidence, you swallow it uncritically. If we just replaced “Clinton” in her story with some other name that you aren’t predisposed against, you might then magically become critical of her story. That’s emotional thinking.
“The answer you don’t seem to want to believe...”
No, you see that’s where you are completely off base. It doesn’t matter what I “want to believe”. Wanting to believe something is emotional thinking. If you want to believe something, then you have to be particularly critical of the evidence to support that belief because your natural tendency will be to give credence to those ideas without the same level of skepticism you would have for ideas you don’t want to believe. So the problem is not that I “don’t want to believe” something. The problem is that you “do want to believe” something, and haven’t bothered to take the effect that has on your reasoning into account.
“You seem to have a strange filter for who you believe”
I believe people who have evidence or corroboration to back up their stories. I’m not sure how that is strange.