2 ms·
> It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then.
by gaganyaan 5y ago
> It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything.
So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!"
Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like.
For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
- TeeMassive 5y agoYour whole argument is assuming that since some citations are factual and relevant than the others are and that makes the article Okay to cite as a source. Which just on its face is ridiculous. > oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous? > you've resorted to goalpost-shifting You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.