4 ms·

I think you’re responding to the wrong person. I didn’t say anything that remotely resembles this...

• fzeroracer 7y ago
  The parent poster brought up an example of news outlets not publishing Creationist opinions. You claimed that The Guardian is not engaging in good faith by being a participant in a debate rather than an observer. My counterpoint was a simple ask: Is The Guardian therefore not behaving in good faith if for example they choose to not publish opinions by Creationists, or if they don't give equal weighting to Creationists whenever a discussion about say, evolution appears.
  • weberc2 7y ago
    My post had nothing to do with creationists nor were they a principle feature of the thread. I’m not really interested in this tangent. If creationism is a metaphor for pseudoscience in general, then my beef is that the Guardian publishes it exclusively and gives comparatively little time to evidence-based positions. Or more accurately, it talks about evidence-based positions deceptively and in bad faith, cherry picking and gas lighting. This is all pretty abstract and I don’t especially care to debate it in depth (not here, anyway)—if someone disagrees with my characterization, that’s fine—my position doesn’t require everyone everywhere to agree with me at all costs.
    • fzeroracer 7y ago
      Can you explain to me what evidence-based positions The Guardian gaslights or engages with in bad faith?