I can’t locate your comment in the thread, outside of my ‘replies’ window because Lemmy doesn’t make the transition easy. I can not see my prior arguments or the thread leading up to your comment, but luckily I’ve stayed on the exact point throughout my entire argument. I’m not breaking anything new out, from the start I stated one thing, and one thing only (so feel free to re-read my comment history) and that has been:
this post doesn’t fit this sub, based on the facts provided in the original post (headline with article). Anything else is adding to the post in order to shoehorn the post into the theme of the sub.
Again, as per my last comment, I am done with this thread and post, as I have had to repeat myself… repeatedly and everyone is and has still missed the point.
I like how you just decided to break out philosophy 101 terminology like it’s going to make your point for you.
The other user cited examples and made an argument using said examples. It’s a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound.
To that I would say, “Yes”. Police chases do endanger lives. In fact, many jurisdictions have outright bans on chases.
I can’t locate your comment in the thread, outside of my ‘replies’ window because Lemmy doesn’t make the transition easy. I can not see my prior arguments or the thread leading up to your comment, but luckily I’ve stayed on the exact point throughout my entire argument. I’m not breaking anything new out, from the start I stated one thing, and one thing only (so feel free to re-read my comment history) and that has been:
this post doesn’t fit this sub, based on the facts provided in the original post (headline with article). Anything else is adding to the post in order to shoehorn the post into the theme of the sub.
Again, as per my last comment, I am done with this thread and post, as I have had to repeat myself… repeatedly and everyone is and has still missed the point.