Yes the article reporting on a research paper has an agenda, and not the random guy ignoring the evidence to contradict it. With absolutely zero to show for your argument, and clearly using flawed logic.
Ah yes, Gizmodo, arbiter of scientific truths. Their agenda is clear: to get you to click, typically with an outragey clickbait headline that reinforces your favorite narrative.
You need to learn the difference between debating someone and shouting at them that they have no argument, no logic, no evidence, and ill motivations. I can think of a couple other things you also need to do, but I’ll keep it PG.
When the messenger has a stated mission of generating ad views, you should absolutely question them. Damn you really are absolutely miserable at telling when someone has an agenda.
I laugh in your face. This article has a clear agenda, not me.
Yes the article reporting on a research paper has an agenda, and not the random guy ignoring the evidence to contradict it. With absolutely zero to show for your argument, and clearly using flawed logic.
All I hear is the laugh of ignorance.
Ah yes, Gizmodo, arbiter of scientific truths. Their agenda is clear: to get you to click, typically with an outragey clickbait headline that reinforces your favorite narrative.
You need to learn the difference between debating someone and shouting at them that they have no argument, no logic, no evidence, and ill motivations. I can think of a couple other things you also need to do, but I’ll keep it PG.
Ah yes the classic blaming the messenger argument, that is one of the most obvious and stupid fallacies.
When the messenger has a stated mission of generating ad views, you should absolutely question them. Damn you really are absolutely miserable at telling when someone has an agenda.