Dude, not a single time ever, under any circumstances, has he admitted he was wrong on anything.
That doesn’t make him a sore loser as much as it makes him dishonest.
I gotta tell you guys…. The logic is supremely flawed.
If I buy a mattress from a store, and they materially misrepresent the product. I buy it believing them.
A year later, they admit they lied or misstated something.
I’m wrong?
No - THEY ARE WRONG.
But anyway guys- I don’t really care. If it makes you all feel better and saves me an additional 10-15 posts- then I admit, by your logic, I’m wrong.
There you go. Done.
That logic only holds up if they admitted to materially misrepresenting their product before you purchased, and other people warned you not to believe them because they had already admitted to the lie, and you ignored them and chose to believe the lie.
With Hopkins, the entire argument was whether he was lying or not. You chose to believe that he wasn’t lying. You were wrong.
But, unlike Warden, I know you have admitted to being wrong once or twice. Not much but you do.
But isn’t that essentially what this guy did? Because he was adamant that he heard what he heard. If I recall correctly he made a second video after people called him out and doubled down.
He admitted he was wrong to postal inspectors BEFORE our conversation.
The lesson here is to be suspicious when people keep changing their story.
I think that’s called lying
Ok- we know now he changed his tune. We didn’t know then. So what’s the issue. Facts changed brother. It happens.
He changed his tune back then too. The sequence of events was:
- Hopkins made salacious claim
- Hopkins admitted, legally, to investigators claim was BS (aka changed his story)
- Hopkins then, free of legal repercussions, said he was intimidated (aka changed his story AGAIN)
At this point you still acted like he was a reliable witness and put faith in his assertion. Warden and I said otherwise.
It turns out, once he was under oath again, he again admitted his claim was BS.
The facts DIDN’T change. Under official scrutiny, he admitted his claim was BS. Then AND now.
No, not really at all. A fact is something that’s based upon empirical evidence and quantifiable measures. The word you’re looking for is claim. The claim changed, but the facts did not change in any way. You chose to accept the claim, despite empirical evidence to the contrary, despite the recanting back and forth, despite the long history of the distributor’s dishonest representations of other situations, because it fit your narrative.
1 Like