4 ms·
You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again t
by kadenshep 9y ago
You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point.
Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.
- olivermarks 9y agoYou are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet. I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better. 'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to decide what is 'real' science and what is 'pseudo'? It's the same censorship challenge as the 'news' crack down on free speech...
- kadenshep 9y ago>You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. No I'm not. I asked a very concise question that you could not answer. You replied with junk. The optics are just icing on the cake. Also real science adheres to the scientific method.
- ch4s3 9y agoNo, your evidence is just form ridiculous sources. The "FoodBabe" article repeats the same nonsense from the DailyMail, and throws in some Monsanto fearmongering.