How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
Mate, the person literally said “Either the sources are biased or not”
are you telling me that
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it’s what the other person was saying.
Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don’t have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be “is the criticism valid?” And not “do you have a better point?”
No it is not. That’s only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as “outrages strawman”. Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias” is a moot point.
How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
There’s no such thing as a source with no bias
But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?
Mate, the person literally said “Either the sources are biased or not”
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it’s what the other person was saying.
Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don’t have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be “is the criticism valid?” And not “do you have a better point?”
And the answer to that question is “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias”
No it is not. That’s only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as “outrages strawman”. Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias” is a moot point.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod