![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
I thought it judges them based on US political spectrum, so if CNN is not on the center-left, where would it be?
I thought it judges them based on US political spectrum, so if CNN is not on the center-left, where would it be?
They’re the same level to me who’s watching from the sidelines.
Bruh, you weren’t even willing to risk your bank account to set up a gofundme for the lady, but here you are telling her to risk her life? Aren’t you also in the same group, then?
I’ve heard of people not reading articles, but this is just a few short paragraphs. I guess people would rather let their preconceptions talk first before doing anything else.
Unfortunately, flat earthers don’t think satellites don’t exist, they just think they use balloons to keep them up there. Shocking, I know.
Then what’s the point of your previous comment talking about the narrator being reliable or not? Sounds like you just had no actual point and wants to use inconsistent logic whenever you want by calling it wisdom.
All I’m saying is that a corrupt individual is not a reliable narrator, therefore it’s illogical to use their corruptness as proof of their reliability at calling out corruption. Your counter examples are not relevant because their qualities does not directly make their statements unreliable.
And again, I’m not calling out the truthness in this matter, since I also believe the IBA is corrupt, but I’m calling out your use of bad logic to support that position. I’m sure if you actually read my comments properly you’d understood that I never questioned the truth in your statement about IBA, only one of the logical reasoning you used.
Is the IOC a reliable narrator, then? Being a corrupt organization would put them in the category of being unreliable to me.
While it may be true that IBA is corrupt, let’s not use the logical reasoning that IOC’s reputation for corruption adds more credibility to their claim. Imagine if Trump called someone corrupt, would his own corrupt reputation leads you to believe his accusation more? I don’t believe so.
We should avoid using bad logic to support a correct opinion because it only damages the perception of your other arguments.
You really don’t see how improving your vision doesn’t make the target look bigger to you?
Nobody said anything about 20/20 vision.
Improving your vision means being able to differentiate details better. Magnification means that you can make something look bigger.
Having a prescription glasses that adds detail but not magnification means that the small target will still look just as small to you as it would to a person with perfectly healthy vision. How do you think this gives them an advantage over someone with normal vision?
It’s already been explained that the glasses cannot have magnification, so what advantage do you think they offer when looking through iron sights?
Basically people who still needs an easily accessible audience. Mastodon has been proven hard to use and hard to advertise to the people around me, so what else can you do.
Nice. I am not really suggesting that they are being actively silenced, since I do see them there from time to time. What I do notice is that stories that are critical of China always get zero or barely any engagement.
Not really a good indicator of lemmy.ml’s willingness to discuss China’s flaws. This is in comparison to the wall of text that love to comment whenever it comes to defending China or blaming the western countries.
We’ll see how many lemmy.ml users comment on your post this time.
And yet, people of that level use windows to game everyday. Shows you how much ready Linux is for mainstream if comments like yours still pop up regularly.
Can’t find this posted in !worldnews@lemmy.ml. Can you link to one?
Your point is idiotic, that’s why it’s easily countered by an analogy that is not relevant to the story. Maybe you should’ve countered him with a better point, instead of relying on overused talking points such as false equivalence to avoid thinking more logically. His point was only to show how stupid the point you brought up was, not to serve as an analogy to the real act.
Not only are you unable to think logically, you even had to rely on mocking my username to try and win this argument. Why so desperate that you had to use such a classic Internet debater move? The projection is really just the icing on the cake.
See, I said you didn’t understand his point, and you’ve just proven it. He never directly compared those two acts, but in your stupidity, you can’t seem to see something that obvious.
Just because you don’t understand his point doesn’t make it a false equivalence.
Just watch out for those that went too far and negatively impact real people and go off on those ones. It’s a waste of your time and effort to go after each dirty joke like this.