It is potentially a false dichotomy, but not in this case.
the headline is an oversimplification.
echo chamber/mouth breathers
IQ bell curve/Loud mouth retards <--- this was you.
Your analysis shows less intelligence than the people you mocked for their intelligence.
The information in the article reflects the headline accurately. Hence the "oversimplification" was untrue. The second comment about echo chamber/mouth breathers isn't substantiated as the facts match the headline. The person who made the mouth breather comment has no clue what is going on. Likewise, you chipped in with a wholly inaccurate assessment of retards - when they were correct and you were wrong. Had you read the article and if you had an IQ of 90+, you would have seen the headline was accurate, and would not have made the comment. You could claim that you made the comment for some other reason, but that you did so not realizing how easily it would be refuted, also puts you on the left side of the bell curve.
There are other possibilities of course - such as your grandma was using your computer at the time, that you were being held hostage and forced to type it, that you are actually smart but were stoned out of your gourd at the time etc.
They are unlikely.
We are seeing more of these cases where a parent loses custody of their child/children because of mask issues. This wasn't remotely the first of them. I don't fault you for not being aware of that. I do fault you for assuming that your fellow Pedes are fools because you lack information, and then doubling down on it. Furthermore, your "any large sample group" shows a basic lack of how statistics work. A sample group is meant to be representative of the whole, and needs to be picked randomly in any case. By and large, most people here (excepting shills) support Trump and tend to be better informed than your average American on politics.
It isn't an exact comparison, but you might as well have said "any large Mensa sample group will have a significant number of retards." or "any large sample group of triangles will have a significant number of squares."
I thoroughly enjoyed your critique. Props on making a decent argument. The actual problem I have with the headline is the complete omission of essential facts which leads some people to the incorrectly assume the state took the child over the issue. Lying by omission is a thing. The father just used the issue (and any other unknown facts from the divorce) to help win his case.
The article title should have said something along the lines of "Mother loses custody battle after dispute with school about not wearing a mask".
Some people are immediately inclined to care less about that compared to an evil government stealing a child, evidenced by some of the responses in the comments. Once they realized the child was with the other parent, they didn't give a shit.
The actual problem I have with the headline is the complete omission of essential facts which leads some people to the incorrectly assume the state took the child over the issue
I would agree that it wasn't clear about whether the state took the child. That would have been a far worse outcome, as the child "protective" services seem to do everything but protect the kids.
It is potentially a false dichotomy, but not in this case.
Your analysis shows less intelligence than the people you mocked for their intelligence.
The information in the article reflects the headline accurately. Hence the "oversimplification" was untrue. The second comment about echo chamber/mouth breathers isn't substantiated as the facts match the headline. The person who made the mouth breather comment has no clue what is going on. Likewise, you chipped in with a wholly inaccurate assessment of retards - when they were correct and you were wrong. Had you read the article and if you had an IQ of 90+, you would have seen the headline was accurate, and would not have made the comment. You could claim that you made the comment for some other reason, but that you did so not realizing how easily it would be refuted, also puts you on the left side of the bell curve.
There are other possibilities of course - such as your grandma was using your computer at the time, that you were being held hostage and forced to type it, that you are actually smart but were stoned out of your gourd at the time etc.
They are unlikely.
We are seeing more of these cases where a parent loses custody of their child/children because of mask issues. This wasn't remotely the first of them. I don't fault you for not being aware of that. I do fault you for assuming that your fellow Pedes are fools because you lack information, and then doubling down on it. Furthermore, your "any large sample group" shows a basic lack of how statistics work. A sample group is meant to be representative of the whole, and needs to be picked randomly in any case. By and large, most people here (excepting shills) support Trump and tend to be better informed than your average American on politics.
It isn't an exact comparison, but you might as well have said "any large Mensa sample group will have a significant number of retards." or "any large sample group of triangles will have a significant number of squares."
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-ne-covid-family-court-order-20201001-dt65cwe3nrex5ltjwnjkh3ggqu-story.html
https://www.securitylawbrief.com/covid-face-masks-and-parental-custody-rights/
I thoroughly enjoyed your critique. Props on making a decent argument. The actual problem I have with the headline is the complete omission of essential facts which leads some people to the incorrectly assume the state took the child over the issue. Lying by omission is a thing. The father just used the issue (and any other unknown facts from the divorce) to help win his case.
The article title should have said something along the lines of "Mother loses custody battle after dispute with school about not wearing a mask".
Some people are immediately inclined to care less about that compared to an evil government stealing a child, evidenced by some of the responses in the comments. Once they realized the child was with the other parent, they didn't give a shit.
I would agree that it wasn't clear about whether the state took the child. That would have been a far worse outcome, as the child "protective" services seem to do everything but protect the kids.