this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
106 points (94.2% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That seems like a silly hight bar. How about we throw in reading comprehension to the list?

Lets compare:

How do you know the force was appropriate

I'll highlight important words for you:

But if he was shooting pub goers then they could use appropriate force to stop him.

Hope that helps you out.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, here's some reading comprehension for you. The person you intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was subdued. They also said that appropriate force would be reasonable if he was actively shooting. You've basically repeated what they've said, trying to antagonise a response. It's a shitty way to try and have a discussion, and I'm gonna call people out on this every day of the week. Be better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was

Oh? WokerOne made that clear? Incorrect. So.... Kinda invalidates your whole argument... And is the basis for my argument. Hence the repetition. Nor did the parent comment make that clear either. Certainly suggests it might be the case. But, when sommone follows that up with its own premise and context, and you ignore it, is on you. The usefulness of a conversation after that point is also lost. But again, that's on you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The article says "after the shooting" the gunman was killed.

Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn't say "during" or any of its synonyms.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes.... Meh. This is boring. You don't really understand what it is you failed to understand. But that's alright.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You don't understand basic English comprehension.

Let's break down your initial comment.

But if he was shooting pub goers

He wasn't so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn't when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don't need to break down the rest cos it's as useful as you are in general to society, not very.