EatATaco

Please expand because the article is about "protest votes" and the top level comment I responded to is seemingly about how the doctor who wrote it should have earned less money. It seems completely non sequitur.

What does this have to do with anything that is being discussed in the article?

what if you’re moving the goal post because you can’t admit that you realise I’m right?

Lol go back and read my first post and then tell me how I'm moving the goal posts. Don't worry, at this point, I don't actually expect you to.

Try to not just assume things about people’s subconscious

It was hardly an assumption. It's pretty typical behavior for people to not want to admit they are wrong. And you're kind of proving I hit the nail on the head by completely abandoning actually defending your position and throwing out the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

The poster said it was a click bait headline because it should have said they threw soup at plastic. There's nothing pedantic about pointing out, as you agree, that the whole point was the shock factor of throwing it at the painting.

Shifting the debate to some more nebulous "what the article is trying to do" is moving the goal posts because you can't just admit that you realize I'm right.

relying on the media going for the shock factor

Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It's literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?

Yet the law

I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn't destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

If anyone missed the point, it's you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it's misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.

There is a kid on my son's soccer team (East Coast) who is from Cali. I asked him why his family moved here. Unfased he said some forest fire burned his home down and then when they found a place to live again another forest fire burned it down. I guess is parents were like "fuck this."

No. But I don't believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.

Let me try this way. If it's no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet...why didn't they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?

The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.

You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.

Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you're calling this click bait and propaganda? I've seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.

That's the joke, but worse.

I think we would agree on a lot. Even our disagreement here - a weak endorsement vs a non-endorsement - isn't that far off from one another.

You're initial point was that she is a musician so nobody should care what she thinks, a straight up ad hominem, and now your whining about as hominems? I might be quite proficient at ad hominems, but your proficiency with hypocrisy puts mine to shame.

I can't tell if you are actually this clueless or just disingenuous.