News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Reminds me of that Onion article that pops up every time there's a mass shooting in the US: "There's no possible way we could have prevented this, says only country where this routinely happens".
Dogs have co-existed with humans longer than just about any other domesticated animal. They don't do things for no reason. If the parents didn't see any signs, it's because they weren't looking hard enough.
Dogs can absolutely be dangerous. They're often bred and trained to be dangerous. They don't just spontaneously decide to be dangerous, especially after eight fucking years.
Even people sometimes just wake up day and snap for reasons beyond our control.
Now you’re generally right, most of these cases there’s some meaningful details missing and the “no history of attacks” is a lie.
We just can’t broadly apply that because we don’t know which one isn’t a lie.
Sometimes the thing that sets a dog off is just that they're older and confused. Dogs do sometimes just snap with no warnings, same as humans.
Yes they do. Any dog can have a trigger you simply have not seen yet. I literally had my rescue dog bite me after 7ish years because I startled him once. Absolutely zero signs of aggression prior to that. Every dog has a line and it is impossible to know what that like is or if it has changed.
I think this is actually a more dangerous mindset. Any animal can be unpredictable, can do something you've never seen them do before. Maybe there were signs, but maybe there weren't. Either way, it's dangerous to wait for a "sign" before you start to set boundaries on how your pet interacts with any person.
This one did.
Animals follow their instincts. If something sets them off, they are set off.
Mfw
Do you not understand?
I don't. Instincts are a reason. If it was following its instincts, it didn't attack for no reason.
So it's more like a semantics(what words mean) thing tripping you up.
Got it.
If you stand on your head, then pyramids look like ice cream cones.
Totally.
"there was no reason, but here's the reason" isn't semantics. It's just you contradicting yourself one sentence later.
Yes, semantics, I get it.
You need things strictly defined for you but aren't willing to provide parameters or ask questions.
You built a sand castle and then knocked it down all by yourself.
Very impressive.
Saying two conflicting things in the same statement isn't semantics. It's evidence that the author is a putz.
Whether two statements conflict with one another is a function of what those statements mean which is also called “semantics”.
Oh, so you're interpreting certain words to mean something different than their intention?
Like your choosing to define a word differently than someone else?
Isn't there a...word...for that....
Oh, semantics, got it, good thing you connected the dots there.
No? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you know English, and interpreting them as written. There's not a whole lot of room for interpretation there.
Though I am starting to wonder if maybe I gave you too much credit
If you don't understand that one word can have multiple definitions, I'll agree that your assumptions may be giving you trouble.
I assure you, the word "no" does not have any other meanings.
Lol it does to incels, maybe this one is an incel.
Don't think anybody asked you about that word in particular, but at least you're crawling toward an understanding.
Just for fun, "no" can semantically refer to 1) a discreet or broad lack of; or 2) an imperative command to avoid a particular action, but you probably knew that and were being semantically facetious, otherwise you would look like you done goofed up real hard.
Go look up the definition of stupid and pretend that's what I said about your argument. No need for semantics or nuance just take it at face value I'm sure it's accurate enough as is
I agree with you, we could define your arguments as stupid on their face without much further analysis.
In one sense of the word, anyway.