Do you have a reason to think this or did it just sound good in your head

You're right, but man reading this is insufferable. You could be much more effective if you weren't trying to be a dick in your responses.

Did you just say conservatism is a form of liberalism?

I wasn't suggesting they post it there, I was saying it belongs there. Like as an insult

You could have no consent/permission without the owner even knowing you're there

You're extrapolating from one data point, nfts are crypto

r/lolsorandom

But that's not what we're saying. It counts as adverse posession if you're doing something contrary to the owner's interests/rights and they don't stop you.

Get a clue moron, maybe if people stopped being literal cartoon villains and trying to commit treason we'd stop sending them to jail.

Doesn't that only mean that you have to be hostile to their rights, not the other way around?

That keeps happening

We need this for sure

Don't they already have a stockpile from last time?

These people need to be banned from doing this lmao

Two words folks: Torment Nexus

Every time they do this fact-checking they're like "The democrat said republicans want to ban abortions? Well abortion bans have been made by many parties over the past 300 years. Full false. The republican said that democrats want to feed babies to immigrants? Half true, they didn't say they didn't want to do that!"

Vance: 0 true/mostly true

lmao I don't know what I expected

"We should let individuals decide if they should have abortions. Oh sorry, I meant individual states."

4 rolls. Amateurs

People love to assume something like book smarts vs common sense or brains vs brawn is a scale where going higher on one means going lower on the other

Sorry, I think you need to brush up on statistics. The relevant measurement here would be the variance (Variation? Variability? Whatever the term is officially called) in the relevant statistic, not the size of the statistic itself. Using the variance and previous average of the deaths per capita statistic, you can calculate the likelihood of the current deaths per capita having this value compared to the past values. If that likelihood is sufficiently low (for most scientific fields, 5% or less), the result is declared significant, since it's different than what we would expect it to be if nothing had changed, and we can say that with a high (>95%) confidence. To learn more about this "predict the chance of the result being within normal bounds and then go "whoa that's weird" when it's not" method, look up "null hypothesis", or even better "statistical significance".

To give a practical example: The number or deaths from car accidents is fairly low per capita, but since we have a very large amount of data available, it has a low variance and we can predict and calculate the ratio very accurately. If you look up a graph of car deaths per capita over time, each year will only have a ratio of like 0.001%, but the variance between years will not be very high, because we have so much data that the little bits of randomness all even out. We can then look at, for example, car deaths per capita for streets with crosswalks vs without crosswalks, and even though they'll both be a fraction of a percent, because they're both measured so accurately we can make confident assessments of that data.