That doesn’t mean he wasn’t well off? Just as an example, there’s a media figure here in Brazil that has a whole ass “self made man” myth is surrounding him because at some point he was selling baubles in the street or other odd jobs like that. And it is indeed true that he did that, but his family owned a media network. So.
Oh and I don’t mean “well off” in the more “old money” sense, you are right, I’m not saying that he was billionaire level due to his family. I see why it seemed like that from what you were replying to, my bad. But I’m fairly sure I’ve read about his parent for the first time this year, and they had fairly comfortable money, to the point that him opening valve wasn’t a real financial risk for instance.
I’ll try to look for where I’ve read that, I didn’t pick it up immediately because I don’t have a pc at hand till Monday and searching for stuff on the phone is annoying. It’s not impossible that I’m mixing up with someone else, but in fairly sure that isn’t the case.
You can’t just move the burden of proof on to others like this. You’re just spreading misinformation, even if you ultimately turn out to be right what you’re doing is unproductive and harmful.
The issue is that you’re constantly asserting your statement without evidence and when people are offering up contradictory ideas you’re asking them to present evidence (“that doesn’t mean that he’s NOT from a billionaire family”) which is shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, you have to prove it, if people put out other explanations also without evidence then they still don’t have the burden of proof since the point under debate is the claim that you made. As the person making the claim you must prove it.
It’s not meant to be harsh since this is a very low stakes conversation and topic but what you’re doing willingly or unwillingly is exactly how misinformation spreads on more important topics, so it’s important that you be aware and correct your behavior.
I don’t understand what you mean by “constantly”, I made one comment here and clarified when questioned. I prepended my comment with “as far as I know” is exactly because I wasn’t 100% sure on it.
And I only made the “that doesn’t mean he wasn’t” because they literally aren’t exclusionary conditions, and I cited an example as to why I’m stating that that wouldn’t necessarily contradicts my previous comment.
And I also immediately clarified that I messed up and didn’t mean “well off” in the billionaire sense. The example I had in mind wasn’t also a billionaire, but he was still from a rich family.
I’ve made a bunch of conditionals for my statement exactly so that is didn’t pass as you are describing, and made it clear that while I was remembering something about Gaben but I could be misremembering the specifics, which is why I mentioned I would be looking it up later, I just don’t want to do an extensive search on a cellphone. Which is just making me more confused as to your replies to me. Did you read my second comment fully? Are you mixing me up with someone else?
I’ve commented about something I remember but that I wasn’t completely sure on. I’ve further clarified what I meant and specified the context of it. I also mentioned I intend to verify the information but just can’t right now (I’ll be able to later today, as I mentioned).
I still don’t get why are you so aggro on me. Are you sure you are not mixing me with someone else? I still don’t get what you meant by “constantly”.
Afaik his family was always very well off
He was a paperboy and a telegram messenger before college.
That doesn’t scream old money boy.
Aren’t you confusing him with someone else?
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t well off? Just as an example, there’s a media figure here in Brazil that has a whole ass “self made man” myth is surrounding him because at some point he was selling baubles in the street or other odd jobs like that. And it is indeed true that he did that, but his family owned a media network. So.
Oh and I don’t mean “well off” in the more “old money” sense, you are right, I’m not saying that he was billionaire level due to his family. I see why it seemed like that from what you were replying to, my bad. But I’m fairly sure I’ve read about his parent for the first time this year, and they had fairly comfortable money, to the point that him opening valve wasn’t a real financial risk for instance.
I’ll try to look for where I’ve read that, I didn’t pick it up immediately because I don’t have a pc at hand till Monday and searching for stuff on the phone is annoying. It’s not impossible that I’m mixing up with someone else, but in fairly sure that isn’t the case.
You can’t just move the burden of proof on to others like this. You’re just spreading misinformation, even if you ultimately turn out to be right what you’re doing is unproductive and harmful.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I didn’t propose to move the burden of proof? I’m just explaining I won’t be able to verify easily before Monday.
I’m unsure if I miscommunicated something, but the I’m confused by the harshness of the reply?
The issue is that you’re constantly asserting your statement without evidence and when people are offering up contradictory ideas you’re asking them to present evidence (“that doesn’t mean that he’s NOT from a billionaire family”) which is shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, you have to prove it, if people put out other explanations also without evidence then they still don’t have the burden of proof since the point under debate is the claim that you made. As the person making the claim you must prove it.
It’s not meant to be harsh since this is a very low stakes conversation and topic but what you’re doing willingly or unwillingly is exactly how misinformation spreads on more important topics, so it’s important that you be aware and correct your behavior.
I don’t understand what you mean by “constantly”, I made one comment here and clarified when questioned. I prepended my comment with “as far as I know” is exactly because I wasn’t 100% sure on it.
And I only made the “that doesn’t mean he wasn’t” because they literally aren’t exclusionary conditions, and I cited an example as to why I’m stating that that wouldn’t necessarily contradicts my previous comment.
And I also immediately clarified that I messed up and didn’t mean “well off” in the billionaire sense. The example I had in mind wasn’t also a billionaire, but he was still from a rich family.
I’ve made a bunch of conditionals for my statement exactly so that is didn’t pass as you are describing, and made it clear that while I was remembering something about Gaben but I could be misremembering the specifics, which is why I mentioned I would be looking it up later, I just don’t want to do an extensive search on a cellphone. Which is just making me more confused as to your replies to me. Did you read my second comment fully? Are you mixing me up with someone else?
“a bunch of conditionals for my statements” are also known as weasel words. You don’t seem interested in learning from this experience.
How were they weasel words? Honestly.
I’ve commented about something I remember but that I wasn’t completely sure on. I’ve further clarified what I meant and specified the context of it. I also mentioned I intend to verify the information but just can’t right now (I’ll be able to later today, as I mentioned).
I still don’t get why are you so aggro on me. Are you sure you are not mixing me with someone else? I still don’t get what you meant by “constantly”.