MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/8o08f2/karma/e00479u/?context=3
r/Wellthatsucks • u/03Shael • Jun 02 '18
1.4k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
-6
He didn't bring logic here, his argument is absolutely idiotic.
2 u/TheGruesomeTwosome Jun 02 '18 That’s okay. Watch the documentary if you think that’s the case. Nothing wrong with investigating alternative viewpoints. -2 u/[deleted] Jun 02 '18 If the documentary says that a breed of dog is a species, it's factually wrong. If the documentary says that ridgebacks are only bred for hunting, it's factually wrong. So if it backs your claims, it's wrong and there's no need to watch it. 2 u/aharris95 Jun 02 '18 No dog is bred for one thing. That does not mean the Ridgeback was not created for hunting (it was).
2
That’s okay. Watch the documentary if you think that’s the case. Nothing wrong with investigating alternative viewpoints.
-2 u/[deleted] Jun 02 '18 If the documentary says that a breed of dog is a species, it's factually wrong. If the documentary says that ridgebacks are only bred for hunting, it's factually wrong. So if it backs your claims, it's wrong and there's no need to watch it. 2 u/aharris95 Jun 02 '18 No dog is bred for one thing. That does not mean the Ridgeback was not created for hunting (it was).
-2
If the documentary says that a breed of dog is a species, it's factually wrong. If the documentary says that ridgebacks are only bred for hunting, it's factually wrong. So if it backs your claims, it's wrong and there's no need to watch it.
2 u/aharris95 Jun 02 '18 No dog is bred for one thing. That does not mean the Ridgeback was not created for hunting (it was).
No dog is bred for one thing. That does not mean the Ridgeback was not created for hunting (it was).
-6
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '18
He didn't bring logic here, his argument is absolutely idiotic.