Next time a clever dick on a forum or a clever journalist argues that there is no evidence for x or y answer as follows: There is no Class I evidence from randomized controlled studies that using a parachute saves lives, nevertheless most people accept that and use them anyway.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
Why did they need evidence as journalists? Surely the onus was on them investigating and then refuting your claims. Because as journalists their duty was to the story.
It is these mediums connecting me to bugaboo. Bugaboo. Where the local tribes of mindless savages from the lost tribes of robots need proof. Proof they can't investigate for themselves. Bugaboo. I mean social media has been programmed full of these natives. I meant robots. They have no idea how to investigate the story. Instead they blindly refute your claims with they cannot find it in their programming.
The shills tried the 'no evidence' here. Didn't fly.
They are shills. They aren't journalists. They are bugaboo savages, agents of the narrative. As dumb as apes. Robots who search and destroy opposing narratives because it is their only function. CNN and MSM programs them. If ain't on MSM and CNN it needs bugaboo putting you into the stew and eating your brains. Because you cannot think for yourself without the voodoo.
Ban them. They are monkeys.