How can they know intent?

[Meneldor]

https://abc7.com/historical-plaques-el-pueblo-de-los-angeles-monument-stolen-scrap-metal-thieves-chinatown-central-plaza/14103532/

How can the dipshits writing these articles know the intent of the vandals? How can they know they weren't stolen for literally no reason at all except perhaps some teens with the gumption to steal them choosing to do so?

Moreover, what is the intent behind the writers of the article in promulgating this perspective? Maybe no one gives a shit about the monumentalizing of inane shit in the greater los Angeles area , or at least a couple people just don't give a shit and got a wild hair up their asses to remove them?

How can this article be curated and distributed to the public as factual without a capture of the criminals and verification that it was done for the intent of profit?

[Smoofers]

Seems like a pretty accurate assumption.

[Ooloo]

Most people aren't very talented or smart, but still need something to do. Most people, in most positions, aren't very good at their jobs.

[Meneldor]

Seems like a pretty accurate assumption.

That's irrelevant though.

This is a news article from a, presumably, reputable organization literally just spitballing and rolling with it as fact.


If I'm not borderline retarded, how am I supposed to trust that anything they report on has even a modicum of Truth to it when they can literally just make shit up and roll with it as fact on even the most mundane of events

[Smoofers]

You criticize the news org for assuming motive, and in the next breath, assume the motive of the writers themselves. I hope that in time you realize how much of a dummy you are.

[Meneldor]

You criticize the news org for assuming motive, and in the next breath, assume the motive of the writers themselves. I hope that in time you realize how much of a dummy you are.

I'm not a ne s organization parading itself as an arbiter of facts.

The irony is I didn't actually assume motive.

Read the op again.

Quote the part where I assume their motive aside from stating they have a motive (which is a demonstrably provable assumption considering they are parading their assumption as fact despite it not being a fact, so obviously there must be a motive to do so.

I didn't actually ponder on this assumption of motive, I just stated A motive existed, you filled in the rest yourself. I even posted it as a question. That's a false equivalency.
Are you capable of reading comprehension?

[aussenseiter]

It's because Edgar Garcia believes it is, that's *why.

E: *how

[Meneldor]

It's because Edgar Garcia believes it is, that's *why.

E: *how

That very well could be our smoking gun of a motive here folks

Now for my news report:.

Local resident, amateur sleuth, and news reporter streaming mad about some kids vandalizing some rubbish scrawled on some plates awhile ago; conjures boogymen on a national News stage. Makes it past the criteria deemed acceptable by several editors.

Thanks Dog.