By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 45-Year Old Dumbass Threatens 11-Year Old Kid Over Fortnite -_-

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

Right, right, like the entire world is going to know about a Spongebob reference, yet me adding "lol" to what you said is terrible, even though it fit perfectly with the way you said it.  Looked to me like you were mocking them.  Still looks like that, in fact, even if you're saying it's a joke now.  

There was nothing wrong with my argument.  I responded to what you said.  Then you tried to say it was a fallacious argument, then you clarified.  Don't leave out all the details.

I mean, somebody posted the meme before you replied criticizing it as some kind of rude act. Even if you didn't see that or you were too busy replying to have seen it, it's odd that you're trying to paint me as some rude person when A ) Mar wasn't offended by it  B ) He didn't even respond to it and C ) My point isn't that I wrote "burp" because adding "lol" to a sentence was a rude act towards me (I don't consider that rude, that's ridiculous), it was that your exaggeration towards my statement made me take your reply less seriously ... "burp". I honestly do not know why you are trying to go back and argue about these pointless trivialities. Again when I said you should think about how others respond and why they did so, I did it because we were already multiple responses in and I felt you were representing me from the get go. Making a Spongebob joke isn't really equal, but even if it was I wasn't trying to argue about some random details from square one, I was merely explaining to you WHY I did what I did. 

Wait a minute .. NOW you admit I clarified?

Your last response: "If you want to say that you didn't mean that exactly, that would be fine, but you're trying to act like you didn't say what you said."

This response: "then you clarified"

Which one is it?

And again ... really do not understand why you are so obsessed with the timeline of events. I might have referenced something in the past but I was only doing so because you were making a comparison to an 11 year old about the "burp", and I felt I needed to explain. The last time I wrote the word "fallacious" was two hours ago. Why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't even matter anymore because I already clarified what I meant. Argue from that standpoint or don't argue at all, I'm not interested in hearing how offended you are by the first reply.

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  



Around the Network
pokoko said:

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  

By the way before you go, do you understand the definition of the word fallacious? I am not doing this to "1up!" you or offend you, I'm genuinely asking. This is something I fuck up a lot of the times myself. People use the word fallacious wrong and as such it can get confusing.

In it's literal definition fallacious means : "based on a mistaken belief" and a fallacious argument means is an argument based on a false notion or interpretation. 

So if you admit that I clarified what I said, doesn't that mean that technically the word choice of fallacious was right all along? You're agreeing that I clarified something I didn't mean for you to interpret. Therefore, your arguments against that interpretation were fallacious. 

I didn't change my argument and I'm not a hypocrite. All of your past few responses have been pretty bad because they call out random things to try and make a connection that isn't there. But sure Pokoko, be passive aggressive. That's very helpful in a discussion. 

 



pokoko said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean, somebody posted the meme before you replied criticizing it as some kind of rude act. Even if you didn't see that or you were too busy replying to have seen it, it's odd that you're trying to paint me as some rude person when A ) Mar wasn't offended by it  B ) He didn't even respond to it and C ) My point isn't that I wrote "burp" because adding "lol" to a sentence was a rude act towards me (I don't consider that rude, that's ridiculous), it was that your exaggeration towards my statement made me take your reply less seriously ... "burp". I honestly do not know why you are trying to go back and argue about these pointless trivialities. Again when I said you should think about how others respond and why they did so, I did it because we were already multiple responses in and I felt you were representing me from the get go. Making a Spongebob joke isn't really equal, but even if it was I wasn't trying to argue about some random details from square one, I was merely explaining to you WHY I did what I did. 

Wait a minute .. NOW you admit I clarified?

Your last response: "If you want to say that you didn't mean that exactly, that would be fine, but you're trying to act like you didn't say what you said."

This response: "then you clarified"

Which one is it?

And again ... really do not understand why you are so obsessed with the timeline of events. I might have referenced something in the past but I was only doing so because you were making a comparison to an 11 year old about the "burp", and I felt I needed to explain. The last time I wrote the word "fallacious" was two hours ago. Why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't even matter anymore because I already clarified what I meant. Argue from that standpoint or don't argue at all, I'm not interested in hearing how offended you are by the first reply.

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  

Can you point out where exactly? This is pretty easy to say and it looks like you are wanting to close to argument asap because of it.

Also, this way beyond the thread topic.



John2290 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

No, but I hope for the best, even when I hear the worst.

Unless it's VR Chat.

VR chat came to PS4? Is this only an American thing?

I don't know. I just know that VR Chat has a bunch of clicking idiots who ask about Uganda, and thought PSVR was big enough that it would have VR Chat by now.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  

By the way before you go, do you understand the definition of the word fallacious? I am not doing this to "1up!" you or offend you, I'm genuinely asking. This is something I fuck up a lot of the times myself. People use the word fallacious wrong and as such it can get confusing.

In it's literal definition fallacious means : "based on a mistaken belief" and a fallacious argument means is an argument based on a false notion or interpretation. 

So if you admit that I clarified what I said, doesn't that mean that technically the word choice of fallacious was right all along? You're agreeing that I clarified something I didn't mean for you to interpret. Therefore, your arguments against that interpretation were fallacious. 

I didn't change my argument and I'm not a hypocrite. All of your past few responses have been pretty bad because they call out random things to try and make a connection that isn't there. But sure Pokoko, be passive aggressive. That's very helpful in a discussion. 

 

If you're admitting that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, then that would make what you said fallacious.  My argument was based on what you said, not what you meant to say.  Fallacious is simply the existence of a fault.

That's exactly why I called you that.  You did all of that but you're trying to act like you didn't.  "lol" is bad but *burp* isn't.  "lol" is bad but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't--and even if you claim you didn't in the first line, you typing "Anyways being "povocted" is not an excuse" damn sure looks like you are.  You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?".  You just rationalize it after the fact.  The problem seems to be that you just say whatever you want and just assume that everyone will look at it exactly the same way as you even when there is no reason to assume that.  



Around the Network
pokoko said:

If you're admitting that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, then that would make what you said fallacious.  My argument was based on what you said, not what you meant to say.  Fallacious is simply the existence of a fault.

That's exactly why I called you that.  You did all of that but you're trying to act like you didn't.  "lol" is bad but *burp* isn't.  "lol" is bad but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't--and even if you claim you didn't in the first line, you typing "Anyways being "povocted" is not an excuse" damn sure looks like you are.  You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?".  You just rationalize it after the fact.  The problem seems to be that you just say whatever you want and just assume that everyone will look at it exactly the same way as you even when there is no reason to assume that.  

... Again your responses don't make a lot of sense. 

I DIDN'T admit what I said was wrong. It wasn't. Just because someone clarifies something for you doesn't mean they're going back on what they said. That's ridiculous. I even said while clarifying that I should have over explained myself specifically so people like you wouldn't get a misinterpretation of what I said. What I said wasn't wrong, what you took from it was. 

"lol" is bad but *burp* isn't"

A ) Remember that I didn't take "lol" offensively so the criteria isn't what's offensive, I just took it as a wrongful exaggeration B ) you said "lol" first, then I responded with *burp* ... so yeah ... it was mocking your over-exaggeration ... it wasn't bad. Just like how you used "*burp*" as a critique against me with your last response by emphasizing it and using it over and over again, I used it against you originally to signify how ridiculous your exaggeration was. So either you were wrongful in your last reply, or I was never wrongful to begin with. 

"but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't"

How can you write seemingly in the same sentence where you try to make it seem like I was concretely mocking someone? I mean haven't you taken a step back and said to yourself "Wow, i'm trying to make someone look like a jerk for a meme". 

"You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?". "

Wait ... what? How does mocking your exaggeration imply that I DID change my argument? That point doesn't even come close to making sense ... at all. Fallacious literally means "based on a mistaken belief". Wouldn't that imply that in fact I NEVER changed my argument? Wouldn't that work against you and prove that I always thought you were misinterpreting my point? 

Honestly the whole problem is that you are over-thinking things that aren't there, and trying really hard to make points that don't make sense, and just being ridiculous. But sure, keep blaming me man. 

 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

If you're admitting that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, then that would make what you said fallacious.  My argument was based on what you said, not what you meant to say.  Fallacious is simply the existence of a fault.

That's exactly why I called you that.  You did all of that but you're trying to act like you didn't.  "lol" is bad but *burp* isn't.  "lol" is bad but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't--and even if you claim you didn't in the first line, you typing "Anyways being "povocted" is not an excuse" damn sure looks like you are.  You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?".  You just rationalize it after the fact.  The problem seems to be that you just say whatever you want and just assume that everyone will look at it exactly the same way as you even when there is no reason to assume that.  

... Again your responses don't make a lot of sense. 

I DIDN'T admit what I said was wrong. It wasn't. Just because someone clarifies something for you doesn't mean they're going back on what they said. That's ridiculous. I even said while clarifying that I should have over explained myself specifically so people like you wouldn't get a misinterpretation of what I said. What I said wasn't wrong, what you took from it was. 

"lol" is bad but *burp* isn't"

A ) Remember that I didn't take "lol" offensively so the criteria isn't what's offensive, I just took it as a wrongful exaggeration B ) you said "lol" first, then I responded with *burp* ... so yeah ... it was mocking your over-exaggeration ... it wasn't bad. Just like how you used "*burp*" as a critique against me with your last response by emphasizing it and using it over and over again, I used it against you originally to signify how ridiculous your exaggeration was. So either you were wrongful in your last reply, or I was never wrongful to begin with. 

"but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't"

How can you write seemingly in the same sentence where you try to make it seem like I was concretely mocking someone? I mean haven't you taken a step back and said to yourself "Wow, i'm trying to make someone look like a jerk for a meme". 

"You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?". "

Wait ... what? How does mocking your exaggeration imply that I DID change my argument? That point doesn't even come close to making sense ... at all. Fallacious literally means "based on a mistaken belief". Wouldn't that imply that in fact I NEVER changed my argument? Wouldn't that work against you and prove that I always thought you were misinterpreting my point? 

Honestly the whole problem is that you are over-thinking things that aren't there, and trying really hard to make points that don't make sense, and just being ridiculous. But sure, keep blaming me man. 

 

And my "lol" was mocking your ridiculous statement that an 11 year old should not be held responsible for slurs or insults--which it now seems you stand behind.  What's your problem, then?

If you still believe that an 11 year old is not responsible for insults or slurs then we have nothing to talk about.  If you're saying that you didn't mean that, then you're admitting that what you said was wrong.  Nothing else to say, really.  

 



pokoko said: 

And my "lol" was mocking your ridiculous statement that an 11 year old should not be held responsible for slurs or insults--which it now seems you stand behind.  What's your problem, then?

If you still believe that an 11 year old is not responsible for insults or slurs then we have nothing to talk about.  If you're saying that you didn't mean that, then you're admitting that what you said was wrong.  Nothing else to say, really.  

 

But see, you know what's funny about that? I already explained all of this, including my viewpoint. My first clarification was the only one that was needed. But you kept going and tried to go back all the way to my original responses to pin me down. You wouldn't admit that you took me out of context, or misinterpreted (I don't know which it is now because at first I thought you accidentally did it but your replies made it seem more purposeful). Hell ... you wouldn't even admit what the definition of fallacious is! It took you this long because you didn't want to end it and say "Yeah I perceived your point wrong".

Of course I could have, and should have stopped earlier. That's a fault I have. But I think it's just hilarious that your reflection from all this is how simple it all is. Sure dude, so why did you make it convoluted? 

Good day, and I hope our future arguments go smoother. 



hence why voice chat is muted or off unless in party with friends i know.

plus the man-boy should be banned from any and all electronic forms of entertainment that is a video game as they do not posses the maturity or intelligence to handle themselves. plus its fortnite, ffs.



 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said: 

And my "lol" was mocking your ridiculous statement that an 11 year old should not be held responsible for slurs or insults--which it now seems you stand behind.  What's your problem, then?

If you still believe that an 11 year old is not responsible for insults or slurs then we have nothing to talk about.  If you're saying that you didn't mean that, then you're admitting that what you said was wrong.  Nothing else to say, really.  

 

But see, you know what's funny about that? I already explained all of this, including my viewpoint. My first clarification was the only one that was needed. But you kept going and tried to go back all the way to my original responses to pin me down. You wouldn't admit that you took me out of context, or misinterpreted (I don't know which it is now because at first I thought you accidentally did it but your replies made it seem more purposeful). Hell ... you wouldn't even admit what the definition of fallacious is! It took you this long because you didn't want to end it and say "Yeah I perceived your point wrong".

Of course I could have, and should have stopped earlier. That's a fault I have. But I think it's just hilarious that your reflection from all this is how simple it all is. Sure dude, so why did you make it convoluted? 

Good day, and I hope our future arguments go smoother. 

I don't know what to tell you.  This is what you said:

"Cuss words? Slurs? Was he trolling? So what? That's just standard 11 year old online behavior. It's normal and instead of criticizing him for the possibility of that happening all accountability should be put on the party that is mature."

Read over that a few times.  I didn't misinterpret, you phrased badly.  That's not my fault.  I responded to the literal interpretation of your statement.  I said that each party is responsible for their own actions and that the actions of the worse offense do not negate the actions of the lesser.  You think that's fallacious?  Alright.  I don't think there is anything else to say.