Speaking from experience, she will regret that decision.

Nope what?

Yes, I refrained it to better align with reality. Both are forms of editorializing. You dont have a point.

deleted by creator

You say that like its completely reasonable for the system to be trying to jail a man for rescuing children from a predator. The original title frames this as if he did something wrong by knocking out the chomo exposing himself to children but then he was graciously sAvEd by the system.

The original title was inaccurate and its kinda worrying that you wernt able to pick up on that all on your own.

Im not sure what you think youre getting at here.

Go ahead.

Get yourself an “assault on a federal agent” charge.

Accuracy

If it was clear I would have answered it. Why what? Which part of what i wrote were you questioning? We will never know because instead of writing a specific question you write “why?..” and then threw a fit like a toddler when I refused to try and read your mind.

Why?..

Vague questions get vague answers

Sounds like you’re just grifting on the pain and suffering of women.

Folding is a bigoted term used by those privileged enough to bend at the waist. Its an extremely ableist term the expressly excludes those with lower back injurys. You should check your privilege

If you cant see it than you need to examine your privilege for internalize misogyny.

Damn, now THATs what I call sexism.

Cause

Must have been pagers inside those cars

Should read: “Corrupt corporate government run by pedophiles decides it would be bad optics to jail hero who knocked out predator who was actively harming children”

So it doesn’t say that and you were creating a strawman, great. Thanks for playing. I see no point in reading the rest of that.

One of us clearly cant read. Show me where in that article any one argued for or against “testing for everything” which is what you originally tried to argue against.

Listening to scientists about science may not be an appeal to authority but trying to imply that an argument is either valid or invalid based on whether or not the person who said it is a scientist sure as shit is.

One of us clearly didnt read the article as nowhere in the article is anyone arguing that we should test for everything(the thing you argued against). You dismissing the calls to test the water for these medications with “well we cant afford to test for everything” is absolutely a strawman because you are addressing an argument that isnt being made. Your statement about “non scientists” is an indirect appeal to authority that attempts to frame the topic as one that can only be broached by “scientists”. An appeal to authority logical fallacy is an informal logical fallacy where a claim is deemed true solely because an authority figure or expert asserts it, rather than providing sufficient evidence or reasoning. By dismissing the people who want the water supply tested for the abortion medications as “non-scientists” you are attempting to imply that the counter argument “we shouldn’t test the water” is true based solely on what some “scientists” are arguing. Furthermore, you didnt actually quote anyone in your argument, it was solely an indirect appeal to authority.