I think a better analogy would be that someone wrote an article about how cigarettes cause cancer but a random commentator complains that they don’t talk about radon.
Does radon cause lung cancer? Yes. Is that what the article is talking about? No.
Was I being an inflammatory asshole in my first comment? Yeah, sorry. I’m argumentative today. I try to not be but sometimes I can’t help it; I’m working on it though.
If someone told you smoking 50 packs a cigarette a day could lead to lung cancer…
Would you say they’re trying to defend cancer?
Or do you think they’re stating a simple case of cause and effect?
I think a better analogy would be that someone wrote an article about how cigarettes cause cancer but a random commentator complains that they don’t talk about radon.
Does radon cause lung cancer? Yes. Is that what the article is talking about? No.
Was I being an inflammatory asshole in my first comment? Yeah, sorry. I’m argumentative today. I try to not be but sometimes I can’t help it; I’m working on it though.
Like, read the article again (for the first time) and tell me what the article says is the cause.
They don’t.
They just talk about how bad cancer is.
Don’t be sorry. Most of their posts are a bOtH siDeS bit.
Not expecting a real answer, but wanted to try:
In America there’s two parties, but three groups of voters.
Parties:
Democratic
Republican.
Groups:
For the groups, 1 and 2 always shit on 3.
2 and 3 shit on 1.
But if anyone from 3 says anything that isn’t unadulterated praise of 2…
2 complains about “bOtH sIdES”.
And when 1 shits on 2, 2 apologizes and acts more like 1
Why?
Why are moderates not allowed to be criticized from the left? But when the right does it, they compromise with conservatives?
Do you honestly think group three is only allowed to criticize group one? If so why?
Is radon considered the only viable alternative to smoking?