It was the instant dismissal without even bothering to look at the topic covered in the video or the source. You then doubled down when that was pointed out and asked to watch the video with:
Pointing out that choosing to use an infamously non-credible source with a track record of posting misinformation isn’t a good way to convince others that your position on something isn’t a conspiracy theory itself, has nothing to do with dismissal, it’s a perfectly valid criticism.
But, now that you’ve mentioned it; dismissal is absolutely the correct approach to take when dealing with someone who has a track record of making unsubstantiated claims from a position on non-expertise.
If you want to minimise the possibility of falling foul of misinformation, then avoiding sources of that sort is wise.
Again, you'd completely dismissed/ignored the topic of the video and fatally assumed it was something it was not... or are you telling us you lack the qualifications to read (or listen to someone reading) the senate report
I have no interest in the senate report and I’ve not commented on it. I’ve not engaged you in an argument around it and I’ve not made any claims regarding it. You’re erroneously inferring this yourself.
Fair point, I edited that some time ago for that very reason
I appreciate your honesty here.
I think you just jumped the gun, assumed a little too much about the videos and came in hot.. My bad for not just linking to the reports, but to go off on the need for qualifications, medical expertise etc was just wide of the mark..
You’re problem here is that you’ve read all of this extra stuff into what was a very simple criticism of your choice of source.
I think that my critique was clear and my reasoning was sound. Linking to videos of people accused of promulgating conspiracy theories, when you’re trying to argue against something being a conspiracy theory, isn’t a particularly wise move.
www.iflscience.com
