There are other options. Remembering incorrectly. Being delusional. Etc. There's a difference. While he could be spouting lies, I think calling him a liar adds the idea that he has the intent to deceive, whereas he might not, but still inadverdantly spout lies.
You may think my definition of liar is improper, but I think the nuanced difference is very important in everyday conversation.
This is much too simple. E.g. he could be wrong but thinks he is right. Or he might be right and thinks he's right but for the wrong reasons. etc. He could be an Android fanboy paid by Samsung or Google. Who knows? Who cares?
I'm only interested in facts for his argument as I thought to myself 'In 3yrs HN looked like a very anti-Apple site to me. But there are obviously people here who came to the conclusion that this was a very pro-Apple site.' And I'm interested why this is the case and we got very different feelings from HN.
That isn't what I asked. Either you think he's lying and need to call it out directly and state your reasons why, or you don't.
Difficulty: "Because he didn't provide evidence" is not proof of deception. Either what he's saying did happen, or it did not. Dismissing something as anecdotal only matters in scientific discussions about statistics, notsomuch real life. If we followed such rigorous rules for everyday discussion, nothing would ever be talked about.
>>Either you think he's lying and need to call it out directly and state your reasons why, or you don't.
False dichotomy. Lying implies the intent to deceive, which he may not have. He may simply be remembering things incorrectly, or viewing past events through a reality distortion field. This is why anecdotal evidence is utterly meaningless in discussions like this: when you are making statements about "the way things used to be" you need to provide actual evidence supporting those statements.
