Anecdotal Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

I never said, that cops nor firearms do not exist.  However the point is, that testimony either is or is not evidence.   Perhaps you are confused, because I'm not discussing Christianity or any specific claims regarding religion.  Only principles about testimony as evidence.   Does that change your stance on testimony as evidence?

Sure you aren't, lol.  This whole attempt to validate anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with your silly beliefs, and you didn;t create this thread as a way to argue some point you think might be relevant to them and your interactions with people who call them silly anecdotes.

Do you think that people only accept that cops exist, or that cops shoot people, because of testimonial evidence?  Is that the sum total of evidence for cops, or cops that shoot people?  There is no other evidence.  No men in uniforms with guns and badges?  No bodies laying on the ground shot by men in uniforms with badges?  No video of men in uniforms with badges shooting people or standing over bodies on the ground? 

Because unless you think any of the above.....your question was petulant and you should know better.  In fact, as we've seen in thread, you -do- know better...even if you will never, ever, under any circumstances, concede that simple fact that you yourself have made apparent, because this lie exposes that other lie...that you're totally not talking about, that has nothing to do with your posts in this thread, at all...lol.  There is a grating futility in attempting to argue what is so painfully transparent,  RR.  No, anecdote is not evidence, -you- do not consider anecdote to be evidence, and -you- do not always handle anecdotes uniformly.  You believe in some of them and not in others, not because of the quality of their contents or their weight or because you think that they're evidence...but for other reasons*.  Handed two sets of anecdotes, one of objectively greater value -as- evidence..if anecdotes can be said to have that value in the first place, you choose the lesser set as the truer set.  Obviously, something other than a consideration of what is made evident by anecdote is at play, something other than a rational web of justification underlies your acceptance of anecdote, -when- you deign to accept anecdote.  Trying to level the field by reference to your blatantly ridiculous question of "why do people think cops kill people" is simple desperation.  Why, indeed. Unless the answer is "because anecdotes, ofc" - it's a nonstarter for you.