Oh, so that’s what happened to me at the gym?! I’m not complaining, peeing standing up is awesome

Dykes!

Nice try Universal Studios!

This thread is the perfect alibi for OP, AKA the mobile bandit, the name being a reference to the items they steal and the fact that they only steal items while travelling

It’s amazing how relatable ancient art can be

Canada has some of the least affordable cities in North America but it also has some of the most affordable cities. If you are able to move then Canada has some very affordable options. But I appreciate that the ability to move is a luxury that many folks don’t have because of circumstances like family commitments.

I don’t have it here

I assume you cashed it in with the tooth fairy?

It’s legal through a US subsidiary if the funds come from US operations. The morality is questionable though

Do you have access to Kanopy through your local library? It’s an online streaming platform with decent content.

What’s scary is that limiting kids access to social media sites that promote algorithmic content is controversial. Of course kids shouldn’t be on YouTube. There are great streaming alternatives that are suitable for kids, ABC’s iView in Australia, BBC’s iPlayer in the UK, etc.

Oh I get it… but just in case someone else doesn’t get it, what’s suspicious about the arrangement?

But I want to become a zombie and eat brains

That sounds frustrating, you should buy a pair or Ray Ban sunglasses to reduce the glare from the ad screens. Never hide - Ray Ban.

I would go in just to accept their cookies

Amstrad CPC

deleted by creator

Sure, I’ll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you’ve committed in this thread.

1. Ad Hominem

Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.

Quote:

“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”

Formal Logic:

  (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
  Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)

This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.

2. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.

Quote:

“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”

Formal Logic:

  (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C

You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.

3. Motte and Bailey

Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.

Quote:

“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”

Formal Logic:

  Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
  You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
  Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
  Then argue:
  ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P

It’s a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!

4. Fallacy Fallacy

Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.

Quote:

“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…”

Formal Logic:

  (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
  Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)

Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).

5. Begging the Question

Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.

Quote (from your rebuttal):

“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”

Formal Logic:

  (You assume: ¬P)
  Then argue: ¬P
  \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]

You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.

6. Poisoning the Well

Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.

Quote:

“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”

Formal Logic:

  Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)

This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.

edit: fixing formatting

Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.

If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.

There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.

What news agencies do you trust?

If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.

I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.

propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC

If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.

But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.

The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.

You made this comment implying that paragliders were not used to attack civilian targets. Which is not true and was very easy to verify. I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.

Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting

Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.

But back to my original point, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets. This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.