2 Oregon men die from exposure in a forest after they went out to look for Sasquatch
2 Oregon men die from exposure in a forest after they went out to look for Sasquatch
Sasquatch is a folkloric beast thought by some to roam the forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
Summary
Two Oregon men, aged 59 and 37, were found dead from exposure in Washington State’s Gifford Pinchot National Forest after failing to return from a Christmas Eve trip to search for Sasquatch.
The Skamania County Sheriff’s Office attributed their deaths to harsh weather and lack of preparedness.
A family member reported them missing early Christmas Day, prompting a three-day search involving 60 volunteers, drones, canines, and Coast Guard infrared technology.
You're viewing part of a thread.
People are pushing beliefs that you think harm people.
Correct.
My basic counterpoint to that is: No one forces anyone to believe anything. People are allowed to believe what they want.
Therefore, all scams should be legal. This is based on your logic.
If you believe harm is caused do you think anything should be done about it?
That is very context-dependent.
Yet again, please quote me saying it should be stopped in this specific case. Either that or I'll just flag you for trolling and move on.
“Do not promote mythology or ideology as reality” implies that you’re saying it should be stopped.
I’m just saying this is a simple misunderstanding and I’m really trying to come to some understanding with honest debate - I’m not approaching this to troll, just to understand. Willing to let it go!
“Do not promote mythology or ideology as reality” implies that you’re saying it should be stopped.
That is not true. Stop lying about what I am saying. Repeatedly insisting I am saying it should be stopped doesn't make it true.
Do you really think any time anyone says "don't," they mean "this person needs to be stopped?" If I say to someone, "don't watch that movie, it's awful," am I saying they should be stopped from watching it? You really think that's what is being implied?
My interpretation isn’t unreasonable. Saying ‘Do not promote mythology or ideology as reality’ sounds prescriptive, as though you’re making a strong recommendation about what people should or shouldn’t do, especially in the context of your initial comment (discouraging spending money on a Bigfoot convention). Thank you for clarifying that is not what you meant.
I think we’re still at an impasse in how we define scam, but that is ok.
I literally said in that initial comment:
Some of my wife’s family are Bigfoot believers and she has a masters in folklore, so she went with them to a Bigfoot convention earlier this year. I don’t tell her what to do by any means, but I did tell her I was really against the idea
You were just picking a fight with something you imagined I implied where I very clearly showed that I was not even trying to stop my wife paying money to those people.
Yeah perhaps it is a good example of how people get their back up when their beliefs are criticized. I like Bigfoot and the paranormal and I don’t much appreciate it being called a scam. But I still don’t think you’re interpreting your comments and part in all of this as charitably as I have been on my side.
You won't get far with this guy, he loves getting into arguments with people for no reason at all.
“No troll, no troll, you’re the troll!!!” <- the audacity of this energy lol
I don't follow your point sorry
The correct response here would have been, "I'm sorry for lying and putting words in your mouth."
and I don’t much appreciate it being called a scam.
Based on your assumptions about what I said, I should assume this means you want to stop me, correct?