Not everything needs to meet scientific rigor. If that were the case, you would’ve provided me with at least three scientific studies demonstrating your side of the argument. But you didn’t, because it’s wholly unnecessary for a normal conversation.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t fault you for it. I do disagree with you, but I also appreciate your time discussing this with me and challenging my assertions.
If someone can’t make an argument factually, they should not present it as if it’s actual science. This is not hyperbole, it’s lying.
Posts like this damage the message because it gives the right ammunition to say that we are liars.
Much better to be scientifically rigorous.
Not everything needs to meet scientific rigor. If that were the case, you would’ve provided me with at least three scientific studies demonstrating your side of the argument. But you didn’t, because it’s wholly unnecessary for a normal conversation.
No, not everything needs scientific rigor, but it’s a false equivalence to suggest we should tolerate blatant misinformation.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t fault you for it. I do disagree with you, but I also appreciate your time discussing this with me and challenging my assertions.
Indeed, it’s always nice having reasonable discussions online!
We can at least agree on that. 🙌 😊
“Being blatantly wrong is fine, as long as you have good intentions.”
The average person in the USA only makes $140 per year. Well, it’s not really that bad, but it draws attention to wage inequity in the USA.