“That’s a sandwich worthy of Dagwood Bumstead!”

Hey, my enthusiasm is genuine!

I’m a little confused, that’s pretty typical usage of the word. Or is it because it comes across a little pretentious? As though they’re just trying to cooperate with you to more easily violate your privacy.

Just toss your pants and underwear in the nearest trash bin. Problem solved!

Does your lemmy app let you zoom images at all? Or is it still too small when you do?

I’ve tried using SFC multiple times and had it work zero times. One time after SFC failed to find anything wrong, I ended up fixing the machine by replacing the system file with a copy from a working machine.

I let one of mine expire a few years ago. Finally decided I wanted to try to register it again, but a squatter is now sitting on it asking for something like $10k $3.6k.

Edit: just double-checked, they lowered the price to only $3595!

I mean, it basically is a poop knife that can reach further down inside the toilet.

Yeah, I’ve had to help a neighbor with that 1 time out of 100. The plunger was just causing the water to slam against the turd that had created a perfect seal and splash back outside the toilet. It probably took at least 5 uses with the auger to finally clear out enough crap to finally break it apart enough to let it flush.

Fortunately, the second time I helped them with a nearly identical situation, the plunger worked. But it still took a few forceful plunges in quick succession. I was worried I might have to use the auger again.

moral improves

Not sure if that was intentional, but I suppose it’s technically correct.

Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn’t think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.

Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I’m just really stretching on this one.

This was my line of thinking:

• premise = there are no valid reasons to dislike X
• conclusion = people who dislike X don’t have any valid reasons

Begging the question is a logical fallacy that assumes the conclusion within the premise. If OP was not being genuine, then the faulty conclusion would be “there are no good reasons to dislike GrapheneOS, therefore why do people dislike GrapheneOS?”

It’s very close to begging the question, though. It really depends on OP’s actual intent, which is hard to determine through text. But it does seem like it could have a, “Those of you who still hate GrapheneOS, why are you wrong?” tone to it.

Edit: Reading through OP’s comments, they do sound genuine to me, I’m mostly just explaining why someone might mistake the post for begging the question.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics

Angela Collier actually goes a little more in depth in that video on why MOND is unlikely, even though she does admit it hasn’t been fully ruled out. I didn’t get the impression physicists don’t talk about it because it causes debates, which she claimed seems to happen more often on the internet. I got the impression that most physicists just think it is unlikely to go anywhere, so they just aren’t as interested in it.