if anyone thinks any of these spammed links is proof, please point it out. I'm not clicking every one. this is the most blatant Gish gallops I've seen in months.
nsrxn
joined 1 week ago
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0291791#sec014
this study also relies on poore-nemecek 2018, a study that misuses source data and doesn't disclose this, and which draws some pretty hyperbolic conclusions. I disregard poore-nemecek entirely, and find papers that cite it dubious at best.
this is hard to understand. has anyone else independently reproduced this? if not, we should probably just suspend judgement on their claims until we have more information.
calling me names won't change the facts.
only one of them* is peer-reviewed. it doesn't actually support the claim that you're using it to support. The others are of dubious validity, but they also don't make the same very strong claim that you have.
edit: "them" was in reference to the comment a few back in the thread. the gish gallop of links that appeared after i wrote this comment all appear to be peer reviewed.
no, I'm examining your position, and the evidence provided, and found that they are insufficient.
turns out, everything is political, so, yes, it's all propaganda.
I haven't seen them, but I do know they work with the pentagon, so my guess is they aim to legitimize American hegemony and military spending
it shows that the evidence you've provided doesn't actually support your claim
it's not useless if it describes something.
it doesn't need to be misconstrued. the best propaganda imho is totally true and in context. spreading it with some kind of political goal is still propaganda.
where?