all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 5 months ago (19 children)

You can probably get to 99.9% accuracy by just saying "none of those guys run a worm farm" every time.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] 20 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    I was assuming it wasn't a setup.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (16 children)
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    They did, it’s implied, heavily.

    Asking “which one” means one is.

    It’s not ambiguous, you just missed important detials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    It’s okay to admit you were wrong.

    You assumed wrong, when they provided all the information you needed.

    It could be what you’re saying, but you would need to intentionally ignore the context of “which one”.

    It’s funny you speak of bias, when you’re the one being biased and assuming based of everything being “randomly selected”. I read what the person said and parsed it, you didn’t.

    It’s like having a police lineup where one person is a crook, it’s not some survey lmfao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them, without any previous knowledge, why would the assumption be random? That’s adding details that aren’t even there lol.

    You realize that resulting to insults you mind as well just wave a flag saying you’re wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    A lineup (like a police lineup) is exactly that. One is the suspect and the rest are there to ensure that you can accurately identify the actual suspect to be used later in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    "Literally a random selection except for the person not randomly selected"

    Lol you have to be joking, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    you fucking morons.

    😂

    You realize we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don't want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you've been terribly wrong this whole time. I can't wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren't real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you're right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    They fucked up by responding to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I honestly find this person's compulsion to never admit they're wrong to be mildly fascinating. They just keep digging and creating the most outlandish reasons for why they think everyone else is wrong including the very person who asked the question to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.

    The suspect, along with several "fillers" or "foils"—people of similar height, build, and complexion who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present in the lineup.[1]

    You just aren’t all there are you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    So how many people need to explain the same thing to you before you realize that you’re wrong? There’s already 4.

    There’s no one here supporting you, I wonder why that is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You're right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You're wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn't always appoints the perpetrator at random

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You're right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case.

    That person still isn’t randomly selected, they are selected because they look similar to the suspected perp.

    This person is thinking they’ll just grab anyone walking in front of the police station, that’s just wrong on every level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    In a way, isn't every farm a worm farm?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Distinctly, no, as insecticides and fungicides are still widely used and very very bad for worms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    This makes me wonder what everyone's mental image of a worm farmer looks like.

    My intuitive association was Steve Urkel (I mean, the suspenders!) but a Google search suggests a more hirsute look for the average vermiculturist.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I have a worm farm.

    Red wrigglers

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    What are the signs of running a worm farm?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago
    [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Does a compost pile count?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    This is very close to being oddly specific.
    Plus, oddly, I agree with you.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Is it bcz most people don't run a worm farm?

  • source