Re:Guardian records first operating profit since 1998
by weberc2 on Saturday May 04, 2019 @01:23AM
(#19824629)
My post had nothing to do with creationists nor were they a principle feature of the thread. I’m not really interested in this tangent. If creationism is a metaphor for pseudoscience in general, then my beef is that the Guardian publishes it exclusively and gives comparatively little time to evidence-based positions. Or more accurately, it talks about evidence-based positions deceptively and in bad faith, cherry picking and gas lighting. This is all pretty abstract and I don’t especially care to debate it in depth (not here, anyway)—if someone disagrees with my characterization, that’s fine—my position doesn’t require everyone everywhere to agree with me at all costs.
Re:Guardian records first operating profit since 1998
by fzeroracer on Saturday May 04, 2019 @01:53AM
(#19824710)
Can you explain to me what evidence-based positions The Guardian gaslights or engages with in bad faith?
My counterpoint was a simple ask: Is The Guardian therefore not behaving in good faith if for example they choose to not publish opinions by Creationists, or if they don't give equal weighting to Creationists whenever a discussion about say, evolution appears.