The poster said it was a click bait headline because it should have said they threw soup at plastic. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out, as you agree, that the whole point was the shock factor of throwing it at the painting.

Shifting the debate to some more nebulous “what the article is trying to do” is moving the goal posts because you can’t just admit that you realize I’m right.

relying on the media going for the shock factor

Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It’s literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?

Yet the law

I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn’t destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

If anyone missed the point, it’s you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it’s misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.

No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.

Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?

The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.

You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.

Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.

I live in a small suburb right outside of a major us city.

To the nearest convenience store: .6 km To the nearest chain supermarket: .9 km To the bus stop: .3km To the nearest park: 1.0km To the nearest big supermarket: .9km To the nearest library: 1.2km To the nearest train station: .6km Straight-line distance to big Ben: 5708 km

You certainly got me on big Ben distance.

But this is why the question is kind of silly. America is a huge, diverse place. When I lived in NYC, I was probably closer to everything than you. Where I grew up in an almost rural area, the closest thing was over 5km away. And this isn’t even all that bad because I had a friend who grew up in an unincorporated area where she had to drive 30min just to get her mail.

What caused you to wake up?

Other than untracking tracked files, I see nothing in this graphic that isn’t easy to do with a gui. That might even be easy to do but it is something I do in the cli. Can I get some examples?

I would also argue that the common/basic stuff is 99% of what I do with git. And for this I can’t fathom why people would think the cli is better. Like logging and diffing is just so much easier when I can just scroll and click as opposed to having to do a log command, scroll, then remember the hashes, and then write the command. This is something instantly available to me in a gui.

Don’t get me wrong, if the cli is better for you more power to you. We moved from p4 to git and I did this almost exclusively in the cli so I could use scripts more easily. And sometimes I watch beginners use the gui and I have to bite my tongue because I know it would be faster in the cli.

But, especially for a beginner, i strongly recommend a gui.

I guess to each their own because having to hang a cheat sheet on my wall with got commands seems like the exact opposite of good aesthetics to me.

Why not just use a gui? I don’t need something hanging on my wall because it’s all just easy clicking around. And when I do want to use the cli, it’s very easy to bring up.

Since Democrats are so corrupt they refuse to abolish the antidemocratic electoral college

The Democrats would love to do away with the EC because it would swing the power wildly in their favor. The problem is that they can’t unilaterally do it because it would require a constitutional amendment that would require Republican controlled states to vote against their own power.

It’s dead in the water which is why it’s never heavily pursued…and you’re blaming this on democrat corruption? What a wildly delusional take.

You can rest assured that, without fail, whenever there is a story about another Western country doing something bad, someone in the comments section is going to unnecessarily shit on the US. Bonus points for this one because it’s basically blaming the US for “teaching” them this.

You were able to leave your job for a month, come back and continue like nothing happened, then were able to resign a month after that…and you are saying you weren’t treated like a human?

You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.

Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim?

It exactly resembles the logic. Which is the important part. You can argue there is more to it because religious beliefs are much more complicated, and I would agree, but you would also be agreeing with my point that the logic itself is bad.

How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

? There is only a 1 in a million chance that noone is correct. To say the only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong makes no sense because it is almost certainly incorrect.

I’m not,

? Your last argument that I responded to is literally that we shouldnt be acting like a belief is right or certain. Which was also in a chain of you accusing me of saying one must be right.

This is really going off then rails.

Are we arguing that these bomb threats would have happened regardless of Vance’s lie about immigrants eating pets, and Trump’s mindlessly parroting it? Wow! What a coincidence.

And even if they are hoaxes, just like when idiots swat other people on their streams, it’s still a risky situation.

Let’s not downplay the severity of Trump’s lies here.

Yes but the validity of that “demonstration” is showing an equivalent scenario

I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

Your reduced scenario assumed one must be

Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

ALSO not be acting as if it already is right and certain

I started this whole thing by saying I lack a belief in a god because I see no evidence of one. You gotta shake the black and white thinking. Just because I recognize his logic here is garbage, that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his conclusions.

So you are ok with Op narrowing down all religions to 6 discreet choices

No one narrowed anything down to 6 discreet choices. I demonstrated a case where it is inconceivable that all people are correct, while at the same time demonstrating it is completely unreasonable to claim that no one can be correct.

op declared that one must be correct

At no point did anyone claim one must be correct.

that claims some religion is certainly right

The question “why couldn’t it be” is not even remotely equivalent to the claim that “it certainly is.”

The most reasonable conclusion is that they aren’t all correct.

1. already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be “different results” and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.

You are pointing out how a 6D dice is different than picking/defining a religion. I’m not saying they are the same thing, I’m giving you an example where just because it is inconceivable all answers are correct, that doesn’t mean no answer can be correct. There is no strawman in my argument, I’m just applying the logic to something we would all agree one.

1. we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context

This is expanding, by leaps and bounds, the argument in the OP’s image. You are now introducing a bunch of other things. Unprovable, of course. Seriously, how could you know that being correct about a religious would be “100% a matter of perspective and context”? Why couldn’t it be just objectively and patently correct? The fact that some might be partially correct doesn’t change the fact that one could be completely correct.