I'm not including those sources because they don't back up any of the claims in her article except that her sources didn't say X and did say Y.
Let's imagine, for example, that an article said the Earth was flat. It claimed several times that the Earth was flat, but didn't provide evidence or sources to back it up.
Then it goes on to say that CNN is falsely claiming the Earth is round. It cites a CNN article about why the Earth is round, and immediately disputes it as leaving out relevant information.
Did the article provide sources to back up its claim that the Earth is flat?
I'm not including those sources because they don't back up any of the claims in her article *except* that her sources didn't say X and did say Y.
Let's imagine, for example, that an article said the Earth was flat. It claimed several times that the Earth was flat, but didn't provide evidence or sources to back it up.
Then it goes on to say that CNN is falsely claiming the Earth is round. It cites a CNN article about why the Earth is round, and immediately disputes it as leaving out relevant information.
Did the article provide sources to back up its claim that the Earth is flat?
You're right, I probably should have stopped 10 comments ago. I just didn't want this guy to sleep thinking that he won the argument.
You're right, I probably should have stopped 10 comments ago. I just didn't want this guy to sleep thinking that he won the argument.
So you're not including those sources b/c they show her opponents are cunts... You're basically saying Hitler was a "good guy" nvm those jews he killed. Criticism doesn't need to be friendly.