I usually try to cite multiple sources because one or all may be biased, but it’s less likely that multiple sources will misrepresent reality in exactly the same way.
It is possible, but it is less likely.
I quoted all three in my original response, and he only responded negatively to the one based in UK, implying that he considered the other two met some minimum standard of quality.
He also quoted those same sources in his responses to me. If he thought the same way you do, I would have expected him to dismiss them outright, like you are.
but it’s less likely that multiple sources will misrepresent reality in exactly the same way.
Not when you’re selecting sources that all have the same bias. Like, how many sources are you citing that aren’t Western neo-liberal and Zionist aligned? Zero.
implying
So he didn’t say that, you’re just assuming.
If he thought the same way you do, I would have expected him to dismiss them outright,
Or he would cite them to demonstrate that even media that shares your bias supports his position
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Lol, “because you don’t like these extremely biased sources, I quoted some sources with the exact same extreme bias”
I usually try to cite multiple sources because one or all may be biased, but it’s less likely that multiple sources will misrepresent reality in exactly the same way.
It is possible, but it is less likely.
I quoted all three in my original response, and he only responded negatively to the one based in UK, implying that he considered the other two met some minimum standard of quality.
He also quoted those same sources in his responses to me. If he thought the same way you do, I would have expected him to dismiss them outright, like you are.
Not when you’re selecting sources that all have the same bias. Like, how many sources are you citing that aren’t Western neo-liberal and Zionist aligned? Zero.
So he didn’t say that, you’re just assuming.
Or he would cite them to demonstrate that even media that shares your bias supports his position
It’s possible, but he didn’t say that, and our argument continued without your help.
It is weird that you’re white-knighting so hard for him.
Why are you here?
This isn’t your space asshole, I can be here all I like. Why don’t you take your incel buzzwords and fuck off back to reddit?
Removed by mod
That would be… so lame.
Hey, is it weird that Sephallen is white knighting so hard for you? Or are you a hypocritical pos?
All of your comments in my inbox are immature attacks.
Since you’re not even trying to engage in an argument with me, I’m blocking you.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Jean-Paul Sartre