lies again, and gets pasted for it for once.
The NYT is NOT a reliable source! And even if you think you can just take “the true parts,” YOU have no idea what parts are true and what parts aren’t. You have no way to differentiate between truth and falsity.
You are just reinforcing your own prejudices. Whatever strokes your ego and reifies your previously obtained, strongly-held beliefs is perceived by you to be “truth.” Just admit it.
THIS is why I am a Historical Empiricist! While that may not solve ALL the conceptual problems, that approach solves many of them. At least it is not being conceptually a Post-Modern, adrift on a Godless sea–without epistemological rudder or sail, saying that there is ONLY a Nietzschean will to power and no Truth at all…
What, the NY Times couldn’t be bothered to do this work to find out the truth? Like many individuals, if a story fits their pre-judged conclusions, they will go bleatingly along with it. It’s pretty obvious that they are NOT a trustworthy site.