I don’t know. The author is the only one speculating about that answer.
Perfect, you don't know why Nex was a assaulted.
I don’t know. But the answer is not “it happened in a bathroom” like it is for the author.
Now here, you are admitting that you don't have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex's assault being related to bathroom bills.
Seriously? It’s in the title of the article.
Quote from the article please, otherwise, it's Hitchen's Razor for your assertion.
why you think they decided to include that bit of information in the title at all in an article about a trans kid being beaten in a bathroom?
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom after a pattern of increasingly frequent bullying started shortly after a bathroom bill targeting transgender and non-binary people was signed in to law. It's important to context to the event.
you don't know why Nex was a assaulted.
And I suppose you do?
you are admitting that you don't have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex's assault being related to bathroom bills.
LOL this is not an "admission". This is just basic logic. And what happened to pretending like that's not what the author was saying? It was literally 1 comment ago.
Quote from the article please
Ope, and not we're back to pretending that's not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Like I said, it's in the title. If you are illiterate, that's not something I can help you with without telling you what it says, which I've done.
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom
Yes I also read the article, thank you.
It's important to context to the event.
It's only important if you want to imply that it was a cause of the event.
Quote from the article please
Ope, and not we’re back to pretending that’s not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Hitchen's Razor cuts deep. You can't quote it because it wasn't in the article. You're standing up a strawman, and a bad strawman you can't even defend at that.
LOOOOLOLOL just cover your eyes and "see no evil", right? 🙈
My God, the mental gymnastics people will do to defend someone on "your side" being dishonest.
Sorry, I checked, but couldn't find "see no evil" or "your side" in the article. Are you sure that you read and understood the piece before you decried it?
Perfect, you don't know why Nex was a assaulted.
Now here, you are admitting that you don't have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex's assault being related to bathroom bills.
Quote from the article please, otherwise, it's Hitchen's Razor for your assertion.
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom after a pattern of increasingly frequent bullying started shortly after a bathroom bill targeting transgender and non-binary people was signed in to law. It's important to context to the event.
And I suppose you do?
LOL this is not an "admission". This is just basic logic. And what happened to pretending like that's not what the author was saying? It was literally 1 comment ago.
Ope, and not we're back to pretending that's not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Like I said, it's in the title. If you are illiterate, that's not something I can help you with without telling you what it says, which I've done.
Yes I also read the article, thank you.
It's only important if you want to imply that it was a cause of the event.
Hitchen's Razor cuts deep. You can't quote it because it wasn't in the article. You're standing up a strawman, and a bad strawman you can't even defend at that.
LOOOOLOLOL just cover your eyes and "see no evil", right? 🙈
My God, the mental gymnastics people will do to defend someone on "your side" being dishonest.
Sorry, I checked, but couldn't find "see no evil" or "your side" in the article. Are you sure that you read and understood the piece before you decried it?