Quote:
Originally Posted by R Flair
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
libtard
Difference between us and you, is we can read and article from anywhere and make an educated judgement, but liberals are so scared of opposing views that they tie their own hands and remain willfully ignorant.
|
Difference between me and you is i don't believe crazies parading as journalism just to confirm my screwed up views about the world. Facts don't support my views ? let's make up facts. Breitbart, alex jones, longroom, fox news.. same recipe.
Examples:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I mean, even the
latest trope about hillary's health is just ridiculous. All the hype is coming from one "organisation":
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. that does sound great right ? omg that super serious sounding organisation says that hillary is basically a dead man walking
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
..except:
Quote:
Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims, including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;
that HIV does not cause AIDS;
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.
that there is a link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer.
that there are possible links between autism and vaccinations.
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer. Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization, among other major medical bodies.
A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics. A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."
The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions, including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.
|
tl;dr: stop it with your "unbiased sources", all you do is pick and choose articles that fit into your narrative. Articles, not facts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯