Concluding with observable facts that the well has already been poisoned is not a fallacy.
OP gave multiple, well-documented cases, of which I was so nice to actually put a name to two, but anyone who followed the news the past 5 years recognised them.
Of course, like a typical troll with no argument you just shout "t'ain't so!" and run away, while projecting your own moral bankruptcy on the other. I had expected nothing better after asking you to back up your position.
And yet people keep voting for governments promising more austerity. The facts do not bear out your hypothesis.
Again I ask, what does that single stat do to refute the multiple points brought up by its parent post?
And where does that refute his point? Despite the fact that society pats women on the head by passing them a largely useless piece of paper (it's still mostly your social network that determines advancement, not your degree), we still get politicians like Akin, and the Hobby Lobby decision.
Quite frankly, GP is right, and the Troll mod is probably the work of yet another pimply MRA type.
Or we could just ignore the butthurt complaints of little basement dwellers like you and tmosley below.
Since this particular form has been taken over and is now a shibboleth for weaseling, a smart person would avoid it at all costs.
Marvel takes a gazillion liberties with the source material anyway, so why is this one specific liberty one step too far?
(Aside from the fact that this change is in fact closer to the original sources anyway. Then again, this kind of reflexive misogyny is not a sign of clear thinking anyway)
Anytime I hear someone say "A but B" I know they mean B but are just too cowardly to say so outright.
Right. So an alien being posing as an Asgardian God? No problem.
The power of said alien being manifesting in ordinary mortals? No problem.
Said being a member of a team with among others a Forties soldier who survived decades of being frozen and a man turning into a monster? No problem.
Incarnating as a woman? HERESY!
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!" The summary of this article then uses the past three months and declares it proof of climate change.
I realize that the actual article is more subtle, but I believe the point OP is making was that if you don't want "Polar Vortex" to be used as an argument against climate change, you probably shouldn't use "heat wave" as an argument in favor.
Taken as a whole, the trend is clear. Leading with a headline "last three months hottest ever" is only going to remind people in DC that they just experienced the coldest winter in 20 years and the most snow ever recorded.
Option 6: Submitted papers really aren't that good.
Especially in subjects with a lot of politicisation in the popular press, it is a common tactic for third-rate or worse researchers to go crying about the establishment suppressing their papers; a closer look often turns out that these papers are in fact very shoddy work.
You can't grant mineral rights without assuming ownership of whatever you're granting the rights on.
"Can't?" Ok, I'll bite: what happens when you try? (Did you get an error message? What did it say?)