• Egon
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      You said the source brands I speak of can be said to lie about what’s going on and spin it to something of their liking. Here, the question “as opposed to what” is asked because anyone in any position might argue that the sources they disagree with are lying, so in the spirit of the critical thinking mindset which you say I haven’t learned yet, I’m asking what does one source called out as lying have to indicate it might be lying that the other sources anyone else can call out for lying don’t have.

      • Egon
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
          ·
          1 year ago

          I then highlighted why and showed examples of them having done so.

          You gave disagreements, it isn’t as if you pointed out holes or contradictions. Anyone can do that.

          Lying as opposed to observable reality, for example with regards to the Iraq war and stories about North Korean haircuts.

          Are you saying you’ve observed them or that I have the power to observe them? If it’s the former, is this something you can prove? If it’s the latter, I’m more than happy to observe when you’re ready (and no, “sources” are not “observation”).

          The source “called out for lying” has been proved to have lied. The others have not.

          Based on what? Based on external sources? That brings us back here.