Following the approval of Toripalimab by the Food and Drug Administration, two more Chinese-made cancer drugs have received approval for distribution in the US.
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
That is not true at all. Posting content from disreputable sources encourages the uninformed to see the source as reliable when it is not. Posting these stories from propaganda sources is always harmful. There is no excuse for it when you could have simply taken the time to find a legitimate source for it. If none is found, then it would have been more wise to not post it at all.
You were quick to become offended when the source you posted was called out for its weakness. Instead of being defensive and attacking the commenter who questioned the legitimacy of the source, just own up to the fact that you should have chosen a better source to begin with.
Maybe if the US would start doing something to combat emissions instead of literally increasing the amount of electricity they generate from fossil fuel sources, I can post some pro-US pieces too. US primary energy production from fossil fuels has increased by more than 40% since 2010. The climate is the single biggest issue faced by the world today and the US is more concerned with protecting the profits of billionaire O&G executives than doing anything about it.
Maybe discredit the source, then? The commenter did no work to demonstrate that the statements claimed in the article were illegitimate. It should be trivial, given that the article (and myself) cites an SEC report.
The only person who seems offended in this post is you. Find an alternate source, or don’t, but when your only source is an unreliable one, don’t be upset when people don’t take it seriously.
(None of what I said changes regardless of whether or not your article is 100% factual.)
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
That is not true at all. Posting content from disreputable sources encourages the uninformed to see the source as reliable when it is not. Posting these stories from propaganda sources is always harmful. There is no excuse for it when you could have simply taken the time to find a legitimate source for it. If none is found, then it would have been more wise to not post it at all.
You were quick to become offended when the source you posted was called out for its weakness. Instead of being defensive and attacking the commenter who questioned the legitimacy of the source, just own up to the fact that you should have chosen a better source to begin with.
3 of OPs 4 posts are pro-china pieces. Wonder if he can tell us what happened in Tiananmen Square in April 1989
Maybe if the US would start doing something to combat emissions instead of literally increasing the amount of electricity they generate from fossil fuel sources, I can post some pro-US pieces too. US primary energy production from fossil fuels has increased by more than 40% since 2010. The climate is the single biggest issue faced by the world today and the US is more concerned with protecting the profits of billionaire O&G executives than doing anything about it.
Ah there it is
So, what DID happen in Tiananmen Square in April-June 1989?
Maybe discredit the source, then? The commenter did no work to demonstrate that the statements claimed in the article were illegitimate. It should be trivial, given that the article (and myself) cites an SEC report.
I cited the claim in the article. It’s an entirely fact-based claim. Why are you so offended by facts?
The only person who seems offended in this post is you. Find an alternate source, or don’t, but when your only source is an unreliable one, don’t be upset when people don’t take it seriously.
(None of what I said changes regardless of whether or not your article is 100% factual.)
Some people only trust sources they agree with.
A factual story is unreliable because you don’t like it?
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
Last I checked, there’s no SEC filing indicating that I have sex with goats. The evidence is literally public.
Now a link to THAT would be exactly what people are asking for.
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
No one can read the article because of the paywall. And the link to that report isn’t in the two paragraphs they let me read.
But by all means, go off.
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
Their source is literally public information. Is an SEC report somehow unreliable, too?
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
An SEC filing is an unreliable source?
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
Are you questioning the validity of the facts themselves? The basic math used to drive the conclusion?