• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else “Proves” them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.

    • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The two sources [email protected] provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn’t have a primary source. In this thread [email protected] has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.