Is this a real stance you’re taking or are you just trolling? Explain yourself.

We’re all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for “strawman” like I just did.

To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about “putting words in anyone’s mouth”.

It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don’t have to be ‘responding to anyone’; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.

You did say doctors were rich. Otherwise, who is “this is just another handout to the wealthy” referring to? And like the other commenter mentioned, doctors aren’t usually the ones setting their own costs.

?

The secondary point, as mentioned, is “who said anything about comparative addictiveness?” Is heroin not bad because it isn’t as addictive as meth*? How is that relevant to the point that coffee can be addictive? Saying “claiming coffee is addictive just shows you’ve never been on hard narcotics” is at the level of an ad hominem, as if their point is invalidated by their sobriety.

*I have no idea the relative addictiveness of either (or really any drugs)

If we’re doing stuff “since their invention”, it should stack the sum of people that died in every war to every car death so far.

But this is just a bad post someone thought would get cheap validation on a niche community.

Those are just standard slippers but basketball themed

They’d be a pretty shit lawyer if they couldn’t. They’re playing make-believe in a place that has hard rules. Unless their defence includes some kind of “insanity” plea, I don’t know how any of them have any “victory against the courts” stories to tell.

‘Apparently’? Are you young, chaste, or just generally uninterested in big boobs?

‘Console exclusivity’ is a tier of exclusivity that’s existed for years already.

I’m tired but what exactly are you not understanding if you’ve parsed the previous two examples of the same joke? Is this some bizarre troll?

“Some shithead is trying to undercut complaints by claiming hypocrisy because the complainer is engaging in or using the thing complained about”?

It’s a mixture of relying on auto-correct to fix messages and the weird idea that grammatical correctness is elitist, and thus ignoring it is liberal and moral.

Rough that she’s named “Chubby Mary”. Even if there was another Mary on the ship, ya coulda gone to surnames.

He is standing side-on to the officer, one hand presumably resting against some surface (a wall) and the other hand on his hip.

Yeah, how did they commit this to anywhere that would hurt?

Kinda feels like that only holds when you hold a minority opinion (from a larger societal view). There are no big, explicit groups for being anti-random murder or government-mandated molestations. Most of us are just sorta passively against certain things.

Yea, np

“Aughtcoomsure”

I find it weird that you think a well-done deepfake porn video of someone vulnerable would be in any way less affecting than if real porn had been released.

Your career can only be ruined if you rely on other people to fund your career. He has enough money (and loans and solvent businesses he hasn’t decided to tank yet) independently to keep going when others would have had to pack up.

You think any other non-billionaire could weather the absolute drain of most advertisers leaving Twitter?