Never said that I supported the site mentioned in the OP, though I did approve of it's overall approach to politic based on that one post(Because usually the people that makes that kind of comment are the ones that have tunnel vision, and thus anything they disagree with is something that I agree, but alas that's not the point). Actually I never heard of it before. The initial post I made regarding this subject is exactly what you pointed out: That it was being disregarded not by facts or actual arguments, like the posts you made, but rather because, and I will quote:
"-Anti lockdown support
All topics that have legitimate arguments for and against. So just disregarding it based on it being against something that you dont like or support, but not the arguments on why he is against, is faulty by itself. And the double standard about this whole discussion is, since every paper and website has some form of bias to one way or another(such as The New York Times being more left-leaned, as it is (usually) evident in the stories they run and how they phrase their editorials and such) disheartening and infuriating to say the least.
But if you want to argue with me, please dont attack me for saying this you dont agree, and then making things up that I didn't say. All I said is that The New York times is left-leaned, not "communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters". Don't come to me saying my argument is a pure "strawnman argument" but you end pulling this.
Did I say that you said any of those things about the times? I mean, the post is right there. Show me where I said that, and I'll apologize.
The point is when questioned about preferring biased sources, you responded by attacking another source. And no matter how bad or extreme that source is it in no way validates any other source. Hence, the hyperbolic example.
If you truly believe that there are legitimate arguments for or against each of those positions, then you should be extremely skeptical of a site that consistently expresses only one view, which is why the source should be treated with skepticism at the least and disregarding it is not unreasonable.
And you did indeed say you supported it. Unless you don't support sites that you like.Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 September 2020