• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is hilarious. You responded to me first, I only addressed you have you jumped in. You are also not “unbiased” because you didn’t read the article either and defended the assumption, accusing me of assuming too. But not only that but making false assumptions about my position and then accusing me of being on a high horse. And you’re trying to pretend youre some neutral party. Lol

    Whatever, my man. You want to let ignorant judgments go unaddressed, be my guest, but I’m going to people over here and call it out like it should be.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        My comment had nothing to do with the article.

        You were talking about how we (me and the top level commentor) were both fair in our assumption about what kind of person was that was willing to undergo the procedure. And the article is about people willing to undergo the procedure. So you were absolutely talking about the article. Not only that, but incorrectly claiming that my position was based on being equally as ignorant as you and the top level commentor, when my position was actually based on being knowledgeable by reading the comment.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Because you both made assumptions. Just because your assumptions were not about the article itself doesn’t mean that you didn’t make assumptions.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The assumption you claimed I made was in relation to a fact I stated that’s in the article. Wtf are you on about, specifically?

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No. The assumption was that the other person had the context you had from the article, and chose to call someone stupid. But I don’t know why you’re even bothering with this. You obviously don’t agree and that’s fine.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You’re attempting to change what you accused me of assuming. But in your attempt to be not wrong, you made yourself even more wrong.

                I made no assumption that they read the article. I was actually pretty sure they didn’t, in typical Lemmy fashion.

                So it’s not actually you assuming. Lol

                And why do you keep on acting like I’m the only one keeping this conversation going? You’ve responded to me as much as I’ve responded to you.