yogthos

Yes, you've sealioned into my post. Congratulations on recognizing that.

Be specific regarding which goalposts you claim were moved.

If you actually cared about your time you wouldn't have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.

Be specific what goal posts you claim to have been moved. I'll wait.

Yeah, that's not the argument being made, but I guess we've already established that your reading comprehension needs work.

I'm doing no such thing. My original reply was:

feel free to actually address what the article is saying

I've consistently been making the same point while you've been trying to derail it with irrelevant nonsense because evidently only thing you know how to do is to try and change the subject when you're losing the argument.

The fact that you linked the description of ad hominem here just further underscores my point. Ad hominem would be me making a personal insult as a way to discredit your argument. Being made fun of is not ad hominem. In all seriousness though, there's nothing funny about having poor reading comprehension skills. Perhaps spend some time working on that instead of trolling here.

Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?

Yes, that is a form of a tu quoque fallacy western liberals like to use to shut down criticism of the west and create a double moral standard.

You used so many words to say that you don't actually have any point to make.

Thank you for providing us with a summary of logical fallacies you like to use. Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?

Every source is inherently biased, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. It's incredible that grown ass adults don't understand this. But nobody is accusing you of thinking logically.