Seymour Hersh: A Year of Lying About Nord Stream
Seymour Hersh: A Year of Lying About Nord Stream
The Biden administration has acknowledged neither its responsibility for the Nord Stream pipeline bombing nor the purpose of the sabotage.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I'd use the same argument as you, had I not seen a person loose all the credibility very recently.
There was a respected molecular geneticist in czechia. She was not only the head of a private lab, but acted as a forensic expert for the court. When the covid hit, her lab has developed a new, unique way, to test for it. Then there was a conflict with the government, who temporarily banned her lab from conducting the tests. (Governments banning private labs from testing for covid was a thing in europe for some reason)
All of a sudden she started to claim sars-cov2 was artificially made, without providing any relevant evidence. The disinformation media outlets quickly took notice, decided to take advantage of her reputation, and made her a posterchild for all the covid related conspiracy theories. Things progressed very fast from this point on.
Long story short, she's been a guest in an interview conducted by a religious cult recently, in which she has shunned her entire professional life, and proceeded to explain how our reality is just a simulation, and we have to steer clear from the bad aliens, trying to prevent us from increasing our vibrations, to enter the 5th dimension.
It took 2,5 years for her to go from a respected scientist to publicly shilling for a literal cult.
So, based on your anecdotal evidence of completely unrelated person you will discredit just Hersh or every other human writing anything too?
If you can't extrapolate one situation from another, we can't help you.
How the hell it is even extrapolating? The guy said that one woman he know went into some rabbit hole and this is somehow EVIDENCE that completely different person who just happens to be the person that guy wanted to discredit is the same case?
Thats not even anecdotal evidence that's complete non seqitur (and bizarre tier of slander).
Idon’t necessarily agree with him, but I can follow his point and the example that was provided.
This is feeling like an argument in bad faith. 
This is feeling like an argument in bad faith.
Yes, from him. If he want to discredit Hersh, he should provide an argument against Hersh. Instead he wrote anecdote of how completely unrelated person got "corrupted" and on a basis of that single anecdote he probably wanted to prove everyone can be "corruptible", so Hersh too.
I hope you can see how that are not one but two galaxy wide leaps. From specific person to generalisation for entire humanity, to another specific and unrelated person. I could as well "prove" that since some guy i know in Poland started doing drugs and alcohol, it's a proof that you personally did the same.