Reading this and thinking of the punishing chemical hormone replacement required, it occurs to me that the free range application of estrogen replacement in M to F sex change will bring about large numbers of breast cancers in the future. Estrogen gone wild is a major factor in breast cancer.
The aggregate of human sin looks like coordinated evil, but it's not necessarily so. There doesn't need to be a mastermind for the illusion of organization. You can always blame the devil, I guess, but there's no single human cabal of world power. If there is an illuminati, they're just one more larper special interest group out of many.
but therein lies the problem. how does one prove a journalist is faking anonymous sources? their answer to "who was your source, and are they who they say they are?" will always be: I can't tell you, they testified under condition they remain anonymous.
if the journalist is lying, the trail goes cold as there's no other leads to follow up on.
if the journalist is telling the truth, skeptics can always point to the anonymous source as a fake and the journalist has no way to prove themselves legit.
to discredit a journalist faking anonymous sources, you essentially have to prove the negative argument that they never had a source.
Reading this and thinking of the punishing chemical hormone replacement required, it occurs to me that the free range application of estrogen replacement in M to F sex change will bring about large numbers of breast cancers in the future. Estrogen gone wild is a major factor in breast cancer.
By design. Cancer is one of the biggest money makers for hospitals.
The aggregate of human sin looks like coordinated evil, but it's not necessarily so. There doesn't need to be a mastermind for the illusion of organization. You can always blame the devil, I guess, but there's no single human cabal of world power. If there is an illuminati, they're just one more larper special interest group out of many.
as much as I believe the story, anonymous sources are never reliable because journalists love making shit up
rufo gains nothing by making shit up
discrediting him once will utterly destroy him
but therein lies the problem. how does one prove a journalist is faking anonymous sources? their answer to "who was your source, and are they who they say they are?" will always be: I can't tell you, they testified under condition they remain anonymous.
if the journalist is lying, the trail goes cold as there's no other leads to follow up on.
if the journalist is telling the truth, skeptics can always point to the anonymous source as a fake and the journalist has no way to prove themselves legit.
to discredit a journalist faking anonymous sources, you essentially have to prove the negative argument that they never had a source.