you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The snipping tool allows you to take screenshots, and allows you to doctor them. Assuming /u/Orangutan used Snipping Tool to do this, you still haven't shown that it's not doctored.

This is an attempt to distract from the argument. You're providing irrelevant evidence that doesn't support your assertions. I'm sorry, but that won't work here.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's not a distraction.

I am debunking your fraudulent claim about doctoring photos.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You're not doing a good job.

If I asserted that, instead of Snipping Tool, he used Microsoft Paint, how would that affect whether it was doctored? What about Photoshop? GIMP? PaintShop Pro? PowerPoint?

Ok. I'll hear you out, despite being fairly certain the argument doesn't follow. Please explain how using Snipping Tool means you haven't modified the screenshot.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Modification is different than falsifying or doctoring something for your own personal benefit.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

True. But this falls under both categories, I think, since the modification served to misrepresent the law.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Nothing was falsified. Nothing was doctored.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Nothing was falsified. Nothing was doctored.

How is your argument any different to the "vaccines are safe and effective" you so often criticise (apart from the evidence about the vaccines)?

You're being hypocritical. I can't imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance there must be in your head for you to not have noticed that by now.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because the actual figures cited as evidence were not adjusted. They are facts.

Only circled to draw attention to the specific details.

You are behaving dishonestly, and misrepresenting the facts. .

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Fun" isn't a downvote.

And the figures weren't adjusted, no. You're right there. However, you're missing that the context was stripped and a new context was implied (by the indentation), both of which alone would serve to misrepresent the law but combined have a significant effect.