599
California police stumped after trying to ticket driverless car for illegal U-turn
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
599 points (99.3% liked)
Not The Onion
18248 readers
2259 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemma… by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least that’s a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees aren’t trees.
It’s like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
I'm carrying on the conversation because it's hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. I'm dying to see what comes next.
I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didn’t not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.
I said essentially “I see this, I choose that”
Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.
That’s not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.
A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say I’m entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You can’t say I’m throttling your ability to choose things. I didn’t ask you anything, I didn’t present you with any options.
I’m myself am not “dying to see” what comes next. I replied to you because I’m bored and I’m right. That’s all.
It is funny to me you can’t see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.
You gave only 2 options to chose from which falsely represented the situation.
I succinctly pointed this out. You got angry and are now suffering from Logorrhea.
I gave two options to myself then answered. I never asked you anything.
lol I’m not angry at all just bored. Thank you for the complement though. Yes I’m a salesman and a damn good one. I’ve never had someone describe me as Loquacious, but it’s a rarely used word. I knew it though if that was a test.
Anyway you are clearly balls deep in your histrionics… or maybe you just suffer from HPD in general…
Yes. This is exactly what a false binary is. You presented a situation where more than 2 possibilities exist to put forward a false narrative.
You still haven't. I'm implying you have written Diarrhea.
If that’s the way you want to see it. Good luck with those many other options that aren’t really there.
I know you believe “no there’s a third option of riding fluffy unicorns into the sunset!”
No there’s isn’t. That has never been option.
As for the word my loquacious I guess I just mixed that while speed reading. I’m not really paying all that much attention to you. I’m not angry just bored.