It seems to me that the fish is not the tangible object, but instead the replacement fish would be a false entry into the tangible object (the box).

I don't really see how this isn't just an open and shut case (obviously IANAL). While I think the sentence is inapt, that doesn't change whether I agree with the law or whether they're guilty of violating it.

No matter what has happened in the interim, it does not change the accuracy of the original article, so long as the original article was dated.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. -Ezekiel 23:20

Your example is wanting.

Calling someone a child molester is making a factual claim that said person has molested at least one child. Calling someone an asshole isn't making a claim about anything, other than displeasure. At least, that's assuming that rectums aren't granted personhood. Neither falls into any sort of gray area.

For that gray area, to claim defamation over lying requires not only that the person lied, but that the lie was sufficient to cause some sort of damages and that it went beyond the expectation for them to make misleading or outright false statements.

Describing white males as "spoilt white boys" (disparaging and infantilizing a group based on gender and skin color) isn't really helping your argument that white men aren't oppressed in modern society.

It appears that you are suffering from the idiotic meme that white men never get discriminated against (treated differently based on aspects out of their control, such as race and gender), and that justifies discriminating against them.

To be fair, money IS speech, according to SCoTUS.

Thus, it's not illegal money, it's government-approved talk.

Why would they retract?

It was known of and reported at least a decade ago that there were chemical weapons plants in Iraq. Also, it has been known of and reported, as stated in the summary, that the plants were from early in Hussein's rule and had been in disuse for years by the time the US invaded in 2003.

No, no. If you place any responsibility on the part of a woman who was victimized, then you're completely absolving the person who committed the offense of all responsibility.

Trolls love to "bully" women because they're the easiest group to get a rise out of.

I'm not convinced that it's more widespread and vicious towards women, but if you have evidence I will gladly look at it.

I would posit that it's not at all more vicious than attacks on any other groups, but rather that it's nearly impossible to discuss "feminist issues" on the internet rationally. If you're a troll and you're looking to get a rise out of people, using sexist language is a great way to escalate an argument.

Also, it seems that for a person who identifies as belonging to a given group, and a troll starts spouting derogatory language pertaining to that group, it's written off as trolling. That is, any group aside from women. Any derogatory language pertaining to a woman's gender is taken as bigotry, harassment or threats.

It seems contradictory to me that many people who call themselves feminists claim that want women to be treated equally to men, but think they can accomplish this by shielding women from the realities of the internet.

To complete the comparison:

Whale is to dolphin what monkey is to human.

That is, a dolphin is a species of whale, just as a human is a species of monkey.

TFS seems to imply some divide between dolphins and whales, where orcas fall into the latter. Orcas and dolphins share the same subfamily.

For comparison, humans and chimps share the same subfamily, and there are clear examples of similarities between us (assuming most of you are human) and chimps. Thus it's not exactly surprising to find similarities between orcas and dolphins.

Goo?

I intentionally didn't mention her name because, contrary to what the gaming media and Quinn herself say, she isn't the focus of GamerGate.

I'm a dude. He's a dude. She's a dude. We're all dudes.

Hey!