GalaxyBrain

I hate how online debate bros dont understand how debate works, pointing out a source is flawed isnt pointing out the argument is flawed, just the basis for it, the conclusion can still be sound and regardless, must still be addressed in an argument. A source claiming to be unbiased is also way less trustworthy in my eyes than one who admits to having a perspective theyre reporting from cause the ones claiming to be unbiased have already lied once cause there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.

It just isnt an argument as well. Just cause a source is biased doesnt mean its incorrect. The truth may just coincide with those biases. Unless you can prove that they are also unfactual whether or not a source may be biased is irrelevant

@Cowbee@hexbear.net I think you're a very nice person. You are deeply patient with these swine and make a genuine effort to not just provide education but to try to get the other person to understand you correctly, despite what is usually their best efforts not to. You are easily the nicest person to the chuds who enter the den of Hexbears, these people are desperately thin skinned to consider you remotely abusive.

I have yet to see any Gishes being Galloped nor your utter destruction at the hands of AP News citations. Not being aware that Redsails isnt itself a source but the sources within the writings on the page absolutely are notwithstanding, I dont think this is the brilliant rhetorical fencing strategy he thinks. Saying one source is biased and the other isn't requires proof of both. Also just cause you're biased doesnt mean you're wrong and juat cause you're unbiased doesnt mean you're right, so its a senseless argument to make anyway unless you can point out that these biases also make them incorrect. These modern day Athenians who love debate so much are really really bad at it and fundamentally misunderstand how it works

No it hurts cause I do manual labor

We need to leave something for Charleton Heston to find

Yeah, theres some I don't talk to but they wee like 2 month things or it was a really long time back. Still really good friends with one that I had a long time thing with and based on what I learned the hard way despite us still being pals is...give like at least 4-6 months of agreed upon no contact. Going to friend mode right after is rife with issues.

"Charlie dont put ketchup on his hotdogs!"

'Feudalism' in how it operated was also incredibly varied and regional, power was less concentrated.

If they're not gonna be serious ill just start saying dumb shit back

No

Which was under capitalism. Capitalism was the dominant mode of production in the 1800s. And directly responsible for the increase in diseases because it forced people to move to cities when Enclosure happened and people had to go work in factories.

That simply isn't true. You've made some pretty broad claims about the middle aged already and putting them together it's a pretty easy guess you don't know jack shit about that time period. Cause so far it seems like you've gotten all of your information from pop culture.