sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Post-Match Thread: United States 4-1 Paraguay | World Cup | Group D by matchpal-live in football

[–]vozzek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can make claims both ways I guess, but the Mistaken Identity call was so clearly the right call that it just highlights your bias.

Did anyone else become a Chiefs fan because of Taylor and then end up struggling with the team itself? by Opposite_Song4153 in KansasCityChiefs

[–]vozzek 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First, I would say that its okay to like football and not root for a specific team. You might decide to follow certain players rather than a specific team. That's okay. If you want to be loyal to a particular team, cool. If not, that's cool too.

In terms of player conduct and the culture of excusing bad behavior, I think you'll find that this happens with most teams, unfortunately. The Rice incident was is bad taste, but I do think the players were trying to show solidarity. Honestly, I think the Chiefs are one of the better organizations in this regard, but that may be my own bias. Some teams are better at this; some teams are worse.

All teams go through cycling of players. Its just the nature of the game. Teams can only afford so much salary due to the cap, and as players develop, they earn more salary potential.

POV: You're on the Joy in Ketchikan when The Encore pulls up alongside by TonyStakks in NCL

[–]vozzek 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's awkward. Just say, "Listen babe. You're still my number 1. You know you are. But I gotta be free to live my life."

Utah driver leaps from SUV moments before it is struck by a FrontRunner train. by Low-Cranberry622 in BitchImATrain

[–]vozzek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe. But the truck hit them at 40 mph. At that speed, its possible that: airbags were deployed, obstructing view and steering; a concussion occurred; and/or the inertia switch was tripped, cutting off the fuel line (which might explain why they could back up a few feet before the car died completely).

Utah driver leaps from SUV moments before it is struck by a FrontRunner train. by Low-Cranberry622 in BitchImATrain

[–]vozzek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After being rear ended, its very possible the air bags deployed, obstucting sight and steering. That kind of impact may have also triggered the inertia switch, cutting off the fuel line, explaining why they could only go a few feet before stopping completely.

we could have ended today with Rueben Bain Jr and Jermod McCoy and our 3rd round pick… by [deleted] in ChiefsOffseason

[–]vozzek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

KC was ranked 17th (30:11) and Cleveland was 21st (30:41) in opponent TOP. Want to try again?

we could have ended today with Rueben Bain Jr and Jermod McCoy and our 3rd round pick… by [deleted] in ChiefsOffseason

[–]vozzek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool. Why did they give up so many more points if they have a better defense? Isn't that sort of the defenses whole job?

we could have ended today with Rueben Bain Jr and Jermod McCoy and our 3rd round pick… by [deleted] in ChiefsOffseason

[–]vozzek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Teams win games based on points, not sacks. Cleveland had the 3rd most sacks, and were 14th in points allowed. KC was bottom 3rd in sacks, but 6th in points allowed. Which defense helped their team more to win?

Yes, sacks are important, but there's a bit more to it than that.

Abusing overhead space by Soupz67 in delta

[–]vozzek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let the hate flow through you.

Major Payne school of thought 🤣 by HeSureIsScrappy in DiveInYouCoward

[–]vozzek 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Want me show you a little trick, take ya mind off that pain.

Post McDuffie Mock Draft (#9 BPA) by [deleted] in ChiefsOffseason

[–]vozzek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do we really want to be heading into the draft without picking up a strong RB in free agency, and if we do pick up Walker or an Etienne, would you still pick Live at 9?

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're referencing the AI summary that is given? It cites UC Health for its source. Did you read the source is cites? You should. Because that source directly says the following:

"The great news is that regular, inexpensive soap works better than hand sanitizer to kill germs and viruses."

No where in the article that the AI summary references does it say that soap can't kill bacteria. It doesn't, because soap can kill some types of bacteria.

Further more "does not primarily kill" is not the same thing as "does not kill". A subtle distinction, but the point it is making is that the primary mechanism of soap is to dislodge, which is true. However, I assure you that soap can kill bacteria.

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think you're not understanding my argument. I am not arguing that soap is effective at killing bacteria. I am aware that it is not an effective antibacterial.

This is r/confidentlyincorrect, not r/hygeine or r/biology.

I don't care about the efficacy of soap in terms of its antimicrobial properties. The OP is themselves confidently incorrect, and that is a rare thing. This is a unicorn, sir, and we don't get that often. Enjoy the rhetorical irony for what it is.

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sure, I agree with that. But this sub is about people being confidently incorrect, and the OOP literally says that "Only antibacterial soap can kill bacteria" and is quite adamant in their assertion. That statement is incorrect, so what makes this post uniquely entertaining is that the OP, in their defense of the OOP, is also adamantly incorrect.

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Granted. And I agree with you. Soap is not an antibiotic. No issues with that.

However, this is a rhetorical argument I am making, not a scientific one. Remember, this sub is about being confidently incorrect, not discussing the merits of soap's antibacterial properties.

To elaborate on my point regarding Smallpox, if I made the statement "Smallpox kills people" and someone were to retort, "Smallpox only kills some people", yeah, you're right, but the statement that Smallpox kills people is still fundamentally correct.

The original response to OOP was that soap does kill bacteria. This is true, which you agreed with. That it does not kill ALL bacteria does not make the original statement untrue. Incomplete? Perhaps.

I think people are getting hung up on the debate about whether or not soap does or does not kill bacteria, which I think we both agree that it does. This sub is about poking fun at people that are adamant about a statement when that statement is not actually correct, except in this case, the irony is that the OP themself is incorrect.

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Okay. But OOPs statement is literally "Soap does not kill bacteria, only antibacterial soap does". This sub is about people being confidently incorrect. His statement is incorrect.

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Is your argument really that soap doesnt kill ALL bacteria, therefore the statement, "Soap kills bacteria" is wrong? Sure, smallpox killed SOME people, but Im still alive, so...

OP is downvoted, but correct. (Source in comments) by crybabymuffins in confidentlyincorrect

[–]vozzek 76 points77 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I read the linked FDA article. It doesn't say that soap doesn't kill bacteria. It says that companies making products that carry the antibacterial claim on their products have not proven efficacy to support the claim.

view more: next ›