4 ms·
By itself, that fact conveys nothing. You could've said, "Every time the "NSA is spying on everyone" comes up, it seems to be Glenn Greenwald talking about it".
by r0h1n 13y ago
By itself, that fact conveys nothing. You could've said, "Every time the "NSA is spying on everyone" comes up, it seems to be Glenn Greenwald talking about it".
When it comes to Big Food (or Big Pharma, Big Insurance etc.), I'd prefer - at the very minimum - taking any claims against them at face value instead of dismissing them outright. Of course, follow it up with your own research.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoI'm just as concerned about BigContrarianism and BigFadDiets.
- nunb 13y agothe Ivory Tower speaks
- yetanotherphd 13y agowhat does that mean?
- fusiongyro 13y agoYeah, I should check it out with my own research in my own lab. That's how I figured out the truth about vaccination and microbes on Mars.
- yutyut 13y agoOr use the internet and objective reasoning...
- r0h1n 13y agoIf that's the only way you can validate claims and counterclaims made by others, please go ahead. Less resourceful people, like me, prefer a more common-sense approach of searching & reading multiple authors & articles to arrive at something they feel could be reasonably close to the truth.
- nunb 13y agoyeah why is it always Glenn Greenwald? Now don't say "conspiracy" because then you're just being faddist and contrarian.
- anon1385 13y ago>You could've said, "Every time the "NSA is spying on everyone" comes up, it seems to be Glenn Greenwald talking about it". Because Greenwald is in possession of a secret stash of documents leaked to him and only a few other people on the planet have access to those documents. Are you saying that Lustig has some secret data about fructose that only he knows about?
- StavrosK 13y agoIt conveys that the opinion you heard a hundred times isn't a hundred people having the same opinion; it's one person having the opinion a hundred times. It's expert consensus vs a guy being loud.