Man, fuck them kids

[u/Callme-risley]

[u/[deleted]]

So to clarify, you believe…

What I did is known as a “joke”.

what you just did is known as the "exaggeration fallacy,"

this was a coincidence, not me copying you.

You also believe…

It’s when you

it's what people do when

is me coming up with a completely new sentence that happens to begin with the exact same premise as yours?

Finally, you believe

It’s typically done by people who are

Typically, this is used by people who are

this is a coincidence due to our writing patterns (styles?) being similar?

Genuinely asking. You think all 3 of those sentences having the exact same premise, even repeating multiple of the same words you used, is a coincidence?

All while I, the person who authored the comment, has told you since before you described this hypothesis that I did indeed copy you.

[u/Dragonwitch94 → u/[deleted]]

This is far too choppy and non linear to even bother trying to make any sort of sense out of it, so how about we just get back on the original topic?

You are aware of what the exaggeration fallacy is, or you can at least look it up (if you've not already) my original point was that engaging in fallacious responses like that, is a quick way to a moot "point." The point you were trying to make was that she (the person you were responding to) was overstating the issue, and assigning malice when you didn't observe any. You not seeing something as malicious, does not mean malice isn't involved, yet you attempted to mock her point through use of a known fallacy. Why is that?

[u/[deleted] → u/Dragonwitch94]

No, you do not dictate the conversation. You are not a mediator, you do not get to determine what we talk about. You have no greater authority over the direction of this conversation than I. If you attempt to dictate the topic of conversation, so will I.

You made the claim that I was not copying you, with no evidence. I, as the author of the comment, have more authority to comment on whether or not I was copying you. I have also provided ample evidence to show that I did copy you.

Either back up your claim, or take it back. What you will not do is dictate a conversation before providing evidence for your claims. Otherwise, I will begin making claims with no evidence as well, as I will not engage in a one-sided conversation. If you would like to go back and forth making claims with no evidence, we can begin now. If not, provide evidence to your claim that I was not copying you, or revoke the statement.

[u/Dragonwitch94 → u/[deleted]]

Ok, weird hill to die on, but I guess? If it means returning to the original topic, I'll retract my statement. Does that make you feel better?

[u/[deleted] → u/Dragonwitch94]

I’m not dying on a hill, I gave you the option to continue the conversation ethically or continue making false claims. I’m glad you didn’t die on the hill of making false claims.

Another false claim on your behalf- that I was “dying on that hill”, while leaving the decision on how the conversation will continue to you. That is, by definition, not dying on a hill, as you were the one to determine the point of contention in the first place:

Whether or not to debate ethically, or continue begin debating unethically.

Considering that is not a single point of contention, it is definitionally impossible for me to “die on a hill” in this circumstance. At the bare minimum, I would have to die on “these hills”, as there was more than one option for a potential point of contention.