RE: Flagging Bot Users Arbitrarily Is Like Arresting Those Paying Protection Money To The Mob
Your entire article is based on unproven opinions. It is the literal definition of garbage. It has no value.
Your response is to wade in here crying like a baby.
Amusing how you storm in here making demands (and missing the Grumpycat joke), yet denying that you are a dictator. You are literally dictating.
Nobody has to prove shit to you, cartoon-dog boy.
"Bid bots are not promotion tools, they are reward siphoning tools, fueled by monkeys like you using them."
More opinions blathered with no support.
"By the way your post is trash, your writting style is pathetic"
I was trying to write down to your level. You don't post anything of value, period. You're just another reward-pool-SJW rabble-rouser who runs around opinion flagging like a naive crybaby.
Ps - You argue like a bitch.
You didn't answer the first serious part of my comment, where I am trying to defend my assumption. You are clearly trying to argue here and not create a discussion.
Making an assumption is part of the scientific method, if you don't believe in the assumption then feel free not to read the rest of the article. That's why I clearly mentioned this ON TOP of my article.
By the way, since we're covering fallacies, your whole argument is one. The burden of proof is on you, since I cannot prove a negative ("that I am not solely here to farm rewards"). Your silly little tasks you demand would prove nothing.
Maybe it would help if you didn't present your opposition with an impossible, fallacious task as a precursor to arguing disingenuously.
"Proving Non-Existence
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence
"where I am trying to defend my assumption. You are clearly trying to argue here and not create a discussion."
You mean, where you provided no actual data to defend your assumption?
Yeah, didn't find you doubling down on your opinion too compelling.
The scientific method is about formulating, testing, and then adjusting hypotheses. Not by starting out with an assumption and trying to prove it.
Here, unlike you, I'll provide SUPPORT:
"sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
You literally just demonstrated you don't know how to apply the scientific method, and it shows in your work.
PS - Since you clearly missed the joke:
You'll note that no dictators actually appeared in the image I used to modify, just a uniform and a cat. Technicalities and all.