jshevek

No, that source does not validate your claim. Rick Perry did not "attack regulation".

I see a sarcastic misrepresentation of the parent's comment, and nothing of substance here. Is there a deeper, substantial point you wish to make?

> If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing

In that post, they announced that they will be closing, with the proximal cause being a surge of cancelations immediately after the accusations. I cannot copy paste the text as its within the images.

Edit: "...I have decided to close Kindness Yoga." Previous slide uses vague, passive, avoidant language to reference the accusations.

Yes, you are correct. Noting that [not] all cancel efforts are the same, and I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions, it seems that generally cancel culture efforts often gain momentum when the target shows 'perceived weakness' and often lose momentum when the target makes it very clear they don't care. In the case of corporations like Disney, the very idea of telling people to "fuck off" as you say is anathema to PR culture.

You make assertions which would require that the author was mistaken, while ungraciously and unfairly accusing them of lying. Posted elsewhere in this thread is evidence suggesting the possiblity that you may, in fact, have been mistaken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

No, I'm not arguing that proof is necessary for certainty. I'm pointing out that the implied reasoning is akin to argument from ignorance. We don't have to take a position on a topic if we are ignorant, but we often do so when doing so can be used to justify existing biases.

Are you saying that because they are now open, they never closed down?

My point is only that you strongly implied a fallacious argument, which damages your ability to reason on a topic.

That you cannot imagine an approach doesn't mean an approach doesn't exist. It may be possible to form a generalized understanding of an individuals predisposition based on testing with other substances, just as one example.

Can you explain the strawman you believe the parent is presenting? What is the original argument, and what is the misrepresentation?

That "hip jargon" is concise, specifies characteristics, and clarifies meaning.

> Well, one thing you know is that poster knows no one reliant on powered medical devices.

No, this is simply a baseless assumption made by you, with an effect similar to poisoning the well. I know people on medical devices, and one day of power loss per 30 years is absolutely acceptable to them, give that they arranged to have backup power.

The parent stated their experience (one day without power) and the willingness to pay more for a specific change, they didn't say anything about longer time frames. If a single day of power outage will cause a person to die, such as those with certain medical issues, you must make preparations for backup power. I hope you can agree at the extreme that treating the entire power grid as if it were a hospital's internal power network would be absurd.