Decoy321

Op, if you’re an actual person, feel free to post this again with the correct format. Like “TIL [something about your subject.]”

I’m removing this one for a rule 1 violation. It’s a way to combat spam.

1. Enough of us are active.

2. We have our own lives to lead.

3. We do this voluntarily and owe no one anything.

You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with nail polish.

Fun hyperbole, but this all assumes wolves are the only predators.

Nah it’s still the wolf’s fault, even when the shepherd is terrible. Take the wolf out of the equation, and the sheep live regardless of the shepherd’s capabilities.

Meet SAM, the bricklaying robot.

Boooooooo.

I dunno, my dude. That’s still quite a reach to go from a simple question to automatically determining that it’s a hatchet job.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re assuming a lot more than I normally works from a singular question.

There’s a significant difference between the two questions in your first sentence: quality of verifiability. The goal here is to determine accuracy anyways. Asking that directly will never get you an answer that you should accept at face value.

If I ask “is this accurate?”, any sourceless responses lack weight. “yes” holds as much proof as “no.”

But “has anyone heard of this” is a much lower barrier of veracity. Answers themselves won’t determine the accuracy of the article, just whether or not anyone can help establish credibility.

It’s important to question and verify sources, no matter who it is. Criticizing someone who does makes you no better than anyone pushing propaganda.

1. cute kitty, nice photo!

2. sorry for your loss, op.

3. what kind of asshole downvotes these kinds of posts and comments?!?

What is a problem is fake news.

Indeed. That’s why that user asked the simple question. They’re trying to determine the veracity of the information from that website.

Bias and factuality are different concepts. One source can print wildly biased, yet probably true information. While another can provide absolutely unbiased disinformation.

Yes, Tom. Horrible.

Bambi fucked everyone up at that age.

The only thing that makes US crazies different is the easier access to firearms.

Fucking Pinellas County. They’re such a special breed.

Ah, I understand. I was just curious. I personally didn’t find it bothersome, but I don’t speak for anyone but me.

I’m genuinely curious, what were you trying to communicate by directly quoting their entire comment?

And the concern is giving them justification.

Rest assured, I too thought it pretty hysterical. The fact that a bunch of dudes decided “to hell with those assholes in charge, let’s storm their building and toss them all out the window” is pretty funny. Then, 200 years later, they got another bunch of assholes and figured “hey it worked the first time…”

Really? Isn’t it originally from Prague, derived from latin terms? On two separate instances, wars were started because a bunch of dudes threw a bunch of other dudes out windows. Hence the Defenestrations of Prague.

Someone doing something terrible is not justified because someone else is doing the same terrible thing.

What the US has done is unconscionable.