Poll of the Day > My friend told a woman, "fuck her and her ugly ass children."

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

Here's what you seem to be too blind to read "The husband got involved, long story short, it escalated and we got kicked out of the store"

Here's the part of my post that you seem to blind to read:

"He swore at the family, which started an argument that he was ultimately asked to leave for."

Again, note that the other people in this confrontation were not asked to leave. If it was just what happened afterwards that the store objected to, they would logically throw both parties out. They didn't, which suggests that they saw the other family as in the right, which suggests they believe that it was the friend's initial comment that was out of line and that started the dispute.

Revelation34 posted...

Prove it.

Prove that it is. You brought it up in the first place.

As you're contemplating that, you might realise why that's a really dumb challenge to try and make to that point.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Here's the part of my post that you seem to blind to read:

"He swore at the family, which started an argument that he was ultimately asked to leave for."

Again, note that the other people in this confrontation were not asked to leave. If it was just what happened afterwards that the store objected to, they would logically throw both parties out. They didn't, which suggests that they saw the other family as in the right, which suggests they believe that it was the friend's initial comment that was out of line and that started the dispute.

Nope. You're just flat out wrong. Its actually really funny you're claiming he was kicked out for the swearing when the actual thread creator said why they got kicked out.

darkknight109 posted...

Prove that it is. You brought it up in the first place.

As you're contemplating that, you might realise why that's a really dumb challenge to try and make to that point.

No you actually did.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nope. You're just flat out wrong. Its actually really funny you're claiming he was kicked out for the swearing when the actual thread creator said why they got kicked out.

Which I've already explained multiple times.

If you're not seeing it now, you're being deliberately obtuse.

Revelation34 posted...

No you actually did.

And now we've devolved to the "no, u" school of debate.

I note it still hasn't dawned on you why your challenge is such a dumb ask. Keep thinking, it'll come to you.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Which I've already explained multiple times.

If you're not seeing it now, you're being deliberately obtuse.

You really didn't. You're blatantly ignoring what the person who it happened to stated.

darkknight109 posted...

And now we've devolved to the "no, u" school of debate.

I note it still hasn't dawned on you why your challenge is such a dumb ask. Keep thinking, it'll come to you.

You made the original claim so it would be on you to back it up since that's how burden of proof works.
---

Revelation34 posted...

You really didn't. You're blatantly ignoring what the person who it happened to stated.

Except I didn't. Read it again.

Revelation34 posted...

You made the original claim

You mean in Post #141?

Because that wasn't me.

Revelation34 posted...

so it would be on you to back it up since that's how burden of proof works.

I guess the coin still hasn't dropped.

Keep working on it - you'll get it sooner or later!
---

You guys are still arguing? Your debate is just looking worse as it continues and serves as nothing but a waste of time for both of you.

Yes, the fight wouldn't have happened if TC's friend didn't insult the woman and her children, or if the woman didn't say anything to the friend to begin with, or even if the friend hadn't cursed out loud in the first place, but know what kept it going in every instance? Their inability to shut up. Don't repeat their mistake, just move on already.
---

AbsoluteDenial posted...

You guys are still arguing? Your debate is just looking worse as it continues and serves as nothing but a waste of time for both of you.

Yes, the fight wouldn't have happened if TC's friend didn't insult the woman and her children, or if the woman didn't say anything to the friend to begin with, or even if the friend hadn't cursed out loud in the first place, but know what kept it going in every instance? Their inability to shut up. Don't repeat their mistake, just move on already.

But someone is wrong on the internet and I cannot allow that to stand!
---

Bugmeat posted...

That sort of response from your friend was completely out of line. He sounds like a real shit bag.

Maybe she should have just ignored him. But that doesn't even matter. All she said was "excuse me, there are children around you" his reaction was to tell her to fuck off and insult her kids. That's how trashy people behave. Seriously low class. Anyone that feels his response was appropriate falls into that same category.

Her comment deserved nothing more than an eye roll or a dismissive "whatever".

---

darkknight109 posted...

Except I didn't. Read it again.

You are since he swore which led to the incident but wasn't the actual reason he was kicked out.
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Except I didn't. Read it again.

You are since he swore which led to the incident but wasn't the actual reason he was kicked out.

Weird how the other family wasn't thrown out as well then given that they also participated in the 'escalated' confrontation, isn't it? It's almost like the store acknowledged that him swearing at the woman and her kids was what started the whole mess and threw him out for it.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Weird how the other family wasn't thrown out as well then given that they also participated in the 'escalated' confrontation, isn't it? It's almost like the store acknowledged that him swearing at the woman and her kids was what started the whole mess and threw him out for it.

Actually he never said they weren't thrown out too. If they actually fought then they would have been thrown out too.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Weird how the other family wasn't thrown out as well then given that they also participated in the 'escalated' confrontation, isn't it? It's almost like the store acknowledged that him swearing at the woman and her kids was what started the whole mess and threw him out for it.

Or they can kick out a couple dudes fuss free but they might end up in the news if they kicked out a family with a small child.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Actually he never said they weren't thrown out too. If they actually fought then they would have been thrown out too.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or they can kick out a couple dudes fuss free but they might end up in the news if they kicked out a family with a small child.

Your shifting arguments are adorable, but if you two have gotten to the point where you're flat-out making shit up in the hopes that it'll bolster your case, I think we're pretty much done here.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Actually he never said they weren't thrown out too. If they actually fought then they would have been thrown out too.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or they can kick out a couple dudes fuss free but they might end up in the news if they kicked out a family with a small child.

Your shifting arguments are adorable, but if you two have gotten to the point where you're flat-out making shit up in the hopes that it'll bolster your case, I think we're pretty much done here.

Show me one single post of SonnerAnarchy saying they didn't get kicked out too.
---

darkknight109 posted...

flat-out making shit up

darkknight109 posted...

the other family wasn't thrown out

darkknight109 posted...

the store acknowledged that him swearing at the woman and her kids was what started the whole mess and threw him out for it.

Excuse me?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Show me one single post of SonnerAnarchy saying they didn't get kicked out too.

Show me a post where SonnerAnarchy said the store owner didn't apologize profusely to them and offer them free merchandise, while the entire store applauded the husband for standing up to a raging asshole.

I guess I can play this game too.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Excuse me?

I mean, I guess if you carefully excise parts of posts and strip them of all context, it almost looks like something that might support your argument...
---

Wow, people are really still arguing about this?

The lady was an asshole for trying to police someone's language instead of parenting her children.

OP's friend was an asshole for getting irrationally angry about it and flipping out on the lady and causing an even bigger scene.

I don't know how this is continuing to be an argument.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, I guess if you carefully excise parts of posts and strip them of all context, it almost looks like something that might support your argument...

What context makes unsubstantiated claims true? Because you sure as hell presented fuck all to prove your ass pulls.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Show me a post where SonnerAnarchy said the store owner didn't apologize profusely to them and offer them free merchandise, while the entire store applauded the husband for standing up to a raging asshole.

I guess I can play this game too.

You flat out claimed that they weren't kicked out either.

Jen0125 posted...

I don't know how this is continuing to be an argument.

darkknight making false claims.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Wow, people are really still arguing about this?

It's really just come down to a few asinine blowhards trying to save face by having the last word while not realizing both sides of this argument were rendered fucking stupid by their very own bullshit.

I think that about covers it.

jerky_666 posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Wow, people are really still arguing about this?

It's really just come down to a few asinine blowhards trying to save face by having the last word while not realizing both sides of this argument were rendered fucking stupid by their very own bullshit.

I think that about covers it.

Utterly shocking.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What context makes unsubstantiated claims true?

See below.

Revelation34 posted...

You flat out claimed that they weren't kicked out either.

And they weren't, at least so far as any of us know, because the OP pointedly only mentioned his friend getting tossed.

jerky_666 posted...

It's really just come down to a few asinine blowhards trying to save face by having the last word while not realizing both sides of this argument were rendered fucking stupid by their very own bullshit.

Exactly.
---

It sounds like your friend is a low class jerk. He should of just apologized to her and not deliver that rude remark to her and her children. Tell your friend to have some manners and act like he has some class next time.
---

darkknight109 posted...

And they weren't, at least so far as any of us know, because the OP pointedly only mentioned his friend getting tossed.

Which means you're full of shit. You actually claimed they weren't kicked out.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What context makes unsubstantiated claims true?

See below.

Revelation34 posted...

You flat out claimed that they weren't kicked out either.

And they weren't, at least so far as any of us know, because the OP pointedly only mentioned his friend getting tossed.

Oh so when you make claims it's merely as far as any of us know, but when anybody else does they're blowing shit out their ass? Dude, be consistent.
---

i'm confused are revelation and kyuubi the same? They seem to post pretty frequently together (or at least within the same 5-10 minutes of each other)
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

And they weren't, at least so far as any of us know, because the OP pointedly only mentioned his friend getting tossed.

Which means you're full of shit. You actually claimed they weren't kicked out.

.....did you actually read what you quoted?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Oh so when you make claims it's merely as far as any of us know, but when anybody else does they're blowing shit out their ass? Dude, be consistent.

I am.

This is really just a Russell's Teapot argument. If you and Rev are trying to say that something did happen, despite there being no mention of it in the TC, then the burden of proof that it happened lies with you. You're attempting to push the burden of disproof on me, which is not how this works.
---

darkknight109 posted...

This is really just a Russell's Teapot argument. If you and Rev are trying to say that something did happen, despite there being no mention of it in the TC, then the burden of proof that it happened lies with you. You're attempting to push the burden of disproof on me, which is not how this works.

Nah mate. I made claims to assert how undivulged information could sway either way and thus the unsubstantiated claims of your side are invalid.

You had the burden of proof and so in lieu of your side offering proof, I offered an equally invalid unsubstantiated claim with no proof pointing in the opposite direction. If you claim your assertions are true without evidence then I can assert mine are without evidence too and immediately offset your BS.

I would like to operate in the realm of facts and the fact is the store offers no reference of who was in the right so it's unfair to claim that decides he was more wrong than she. Also factual, had she not spoken, he would not have responded.
---

"Also factual, had she not spoken, he would not have responded."

And if he hadn't sworn, she wouldn't have spoken. You don't want to play chicken or the egg when the side you are defending clearly made the first wrong move.
---

kangolcone posted...

"Also factual, had she not spoken, he would not have responded."

And if he hadn't sworn, she wouldn't have spoken. You don't want to play chicken or the egg when the side you are defending clearly made the first wrong move.

Normal people don't bother strangers over stupid shit like that.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

And they weren't, at least so far as any of us know, because the OP pointedly only mentioned his friend getting tossed.

Which means you're full of shit. You actually claimed they weren't kicked out.

.....did you actually read what you quoted?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Oh so when you make claims it's merely as far as any of us know, but when anybody else does they're blowing shit out their ass? Dude, be consistent.

I am.

This is really just a Russell's Teapot argument. If you and Rev are trying to say that something did happen, despite there being no mention of it in the TC, then the burden of proof that it happened lies with you. You're attempting to push the burden of disproof on me, which is not how this works.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905356286

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905364618

Nice try trying to weasel out of that one.

kangolcone posted...

"Also factual, had she not spoken, he would not have responded."

And if he hadn't sworn, she wouldn't have spoken. You don't want to play chicken or the egg when the side you are defending clearly made the first wrong move.

There's nothing wrong with swearing in pain.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nah mate. I made claims to assert how undivulged information could sway either way and thus the unsubstantiated claims of your side are invalid.

You had the burden of proof and so in lieu of your side offering proof, I offered an equally invalid unsubstantiated claim with no proof pointing in the opposite direction.

Except, again, two claims of "something did happen" and "something didn't happen" aren't equally valid.

TC said his friend was tossed out, not the family that the friend was harassing. In that case, you claiming that the family was probably thrown out as well means that the burden of proof lies with you that it happened; since you have none, the default assumption is that the family remained.

If I were to claim that the friend got in a fist fight with the family and you claimed that didn't happen, those two claims would not be equally valid, despite the fact that the OP does not mention whether a fist fight did or did not happen. It would be up to me to prove that a fist-fight happened, which I would be unable to do, so the default assumption is that no physical altercation took place.

This really should not be that hard to comprehend.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Also factual, had she not spoken, he would not have responded.

Had he not sworn in front of a bunch of kids, she would not have spoken in the first place.

Seriously, follow your lines of logic to their conclusion.

Revelation34 posted...

Nice try trying to weasel out of that one.

Kind of like you've suddenly dropped your earlier claim that I was the first one to bring up whether or not getting angry over pain was justified right after I pointed out the exact post where you raised it as a point of discussion? Speaking of which...

Revelation34 posted...

There's nothing wrong with swearing in pain.

a) Yes there is, if you're doing it in front of kids
b) There's also nothing wrong with politely asking someone not to swear in front of children
---

darkknight109 posted...

you claiming that the family was probably thrown out

Never happened lol

darkknight109 posted...

the burden of proof lies with you that it happened; since you have none, the default assumption is that the family remained.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is no assumption, neither are appropriate to assume.

darkknight109 posted...

If I were to claim that the friend got in a fist fight with the family and you claimed that didn't happen, those two claims would not be equally valid, despite the fact that the OP does not mention whether a fist fight did or did not happen. It would be up to me to prove that a fist-fight happened, which I would be unable to do, so the default assumption is that no physical altercation took place.

That only applies when you present any evidence at all, even heresay. When no evidence supports either side, the assumption is nobody knows.

darkknight109 posted...

Had he not sworn in front of a bunch of kids, she would not have spoken in the first place.

Seriously, follow your lines of logic to their conclusion.

She didn't have to do anything, in fact she had to leave him alone.

darkknight109 posted...

a) Yes there is, if you're doing it in front of kids
b) There's also nothing wrong with politely asking someone not to swear in front of children

a) Your morals aren't in line with your society
b) There is something wrong with bothering strangers over your personal morals, we dislike Jehova's Witnesses for a reason
c) Letters are for addressing different issues, numbers address different elements; please use these to suit my beliefs in future.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Except, again, two claims of "something did happen" and "something didn't happen" aren't equally valid.

TC said his friend was tossed out, not the family that the friend was harassing. In that case, you claiming that the family was probably thrown out as well means that the burden of proof lies with you that it happened; since you have none, the default assumption is that the family remained.

If I were to claim that the friend got in a fist fight with the family and you claimed that didn't happen, those two claims would not be equally valid, despite the fact that the OP does not mention whether a fist fight did or did not happen. It would be up to me to prove that a fist-fight happened, which I would be unable to do, so the default assumption is that no physical altercation took place.

This really should not be that hard to comprehend.

I love how you ignore that YOU were the one who even made that claim originally. The burden of proof is on you.

darkknight109 posted...

Yes there is, if you're doing it in front of kids

Nope. Pain is still pain. It isn't swearing at people.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Never happened lol

Rev did and you seem to be supporting it.

So which is it? Do you think the family got thrown out or not?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There is no assumption, neither are appropriate to assume.

So the family just exists in some quantum state of being both thrown out and not thrown out? Interesting idea, but one that doesn't gel with reality.

Again, you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that both claims are equally valid; they're not. Sure, based on the information given, we cannot definitively say that the family was or wasn't tossed out, but that doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.

For instance, what if I said the friend actually didn't get tossed out? Sure, the OP said he did, but maybe the TC was lying. So, really, it's equally likely that the friend stayed and the family was executed by a squad of ninja assassins that the friend was the grandmaster of, right? Sure, I have no evidence for anything in this paragraph, but as you just said absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

She didn't have to do anything, in fact she had to leave him alone.

*claims woman didn't have to do anything before immediately claiming she had to do something*

I think I'm starting to understand why you're having trouble with these issues regarding logical consistencies.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

a) Your morals aren't in line with your society
b) There is something wrong with bothering strangers over your personal morals, we dislike Jehova's Witnesses for a reason
c) Letters are for addressing different issues, numbers address different elements; please use these to suit my beliefs in future.

a) It's kind of hilarious that you're ranting about improper assumptions up there, yet now you're talking about "my society" when you don't even know what society that is. Anyways, see my previous challenge from earlier in this topic: go into a school or onto a playground or somewhere where there's a lot of kids present and start swearing loudly. You might be interested to learn what society really believes.

b) There's also something wrong with swearing in front of kids. There is a reason why teachers don't swear like pirates in front of their grade school students and why said students swearing will usually earn them a rebuke from the teacher.

c) I politely disagree with your convention, as it is inconsistent with the generally-accepted style guides I typically use in my writing. Note how I was able to address your remark without flying off the handle and swearing at you and any children you may or may not have, because I am someone who has sufficient self control to not treat every request made of me by a stranger as a personal affront that requires a vitriolic response like an emotionally incontinent manchild.

Had the friend responded to the woman's request by rolling his eyes, muttering "whatever", or even just doing nothing, he would have been fine; the fact that he felt the need to start raging at her AND insult her children - who, again, had absolutely no part in this argument - is what makes him a colossal asshole.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I love how you ignore that YOU were the one who even made that claim originally. The burden of proof is on you.

Weird how that didn't apply in our earlier argument when that concept was working against you.

But no, you're trying to stick me with a burden of disproof. You've constructed a fantasy situation where the family got tossed out and asking me to disprove that that happened. That's not how basic logic functions.

Revelation34 posted...

Nope. Pain is still pain. It isn't swearing at people.

So you think it would be OK for a teacher in an elementary school to pepper her lessons with various fucks and shits as long as she wasn't directly addressing a student at the time?

Again, most people have the emotional maturity to control when and where they swear and to bite their tongue if they're in an area where swearing would be inappropriate. Like in front of young children, for instance.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So the family just exists in some quantum state of being both thrown out and not thrown out? Interesting idea, but one that doesn't gel with reality.

It gels with how you have to handle data. People want to make computers with a trinary base code with the third option being a "maybe" to help with logical computation. This is also like using imaginary numbers to achieve a correct result.

darkknight109 posted...

Again, you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that both claims are equally valid; they're not. Sure, based on the information given, we cannot definitively say that the family was or wasn't tossed out, but that doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.

When neither have anything to support them, they're equally unproven. They are equally likely until further evidence is presented to support one or the other.

darkknight109 posted...

For instance, what if I said the friend actually didn't get tossed out? Sure, the OP said he did, but maybe the TC was lying. So, really, it's equally likely that the friend stayed and the family was executed by a squad of ninja assassins that the friend was the grandmaster of, right? Sure, I have no evidence for anything in this paragraph, but as you just said absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The TC was there so his word carries weight. Evidence can be false, but its weight is considered regardless. If false evidence had no weight then we wouldn't have conflicting evidence.

To counter your hyperbole, if you don't have evidence that the friend doesn't or couldn't know a ninja grandmaster, ninjas didn't or couldn't have killed them or the family isn't dead then it's perfectly legitimate. However that claim is easily fact checked and ruled out immediately so its theoretical legitimacy is irrelevant.

darkknight109 posted...

*claims woman didn't have to do anything before immediately claiming she had to do something*

I think I'm starting to understand why you're having trouble with these issues regarding logical consistencies.

Doing nothing isn't doing something, I can see how this is difficult for you.

darkknight109 posted...

see my previous challenge from earlier in this topic: go into a school or onto a playground or somewhere where there's a lot of kids present and start swearing loudly. You might be interested to learn what society really believes.

Because that's totally the same thing. I made an apples for apples comparative example I could do for you, you failed to take the bet against your nonsense, you pussied out of gaining some empirical evidence so you lose your right to complain on this point.
---

darkknight109 posted...

There's also something wrong with swearing in front of kids. There is a reason why teachers don't swear like pirates in front of their grade school students and why said students swearing will usually earn them a rebuke from the teacher.

Schools aren't the real world lol

darkknight109 posted...

I politely disagree with your convention, as it is inconsistent with the generally-accepted style guides I typically use in my writing.

"I disagree because I don't do it" lol

darkknight109 posted...

Note how I was able to address your remark without flying off the handle and swearing at you and any children you may or may not have, because I am someone who has sufficient self control to not treat every request made of me by a stranger as a personal affront that requires a vitriolic response like an emotionally incontinent manchild.

Notice how I'm doing the same, that's not an argument.

darkknight109 posted...

Had the friend responded to the woman's request by rolling his eyes, muttering "whatever", or even just doing nothing, he would have been fine; the fact that he felt the need to start raging at her AND insult her children - who, again, had absolutely no part in this argument - is what makes him a colossal asshole.

Had the woman slapped him across the face and spat on him then that response would have ended it, but she was still the aggressor lol She initiated so she is responsible.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So you think it would be OK for a teacher in an elementary school to pepper her lessons with various fucks and shits as long as she wasn't directly addressing a student at the time?

Different situation, different responsibility.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Rev did and you seem to be supporting it.

So which is it? Do you think the family got thrown out or not?

Nope. I never said anything about it except for "It sounded like he got in a fight with the husband so it was never about swearing that got him kicked out." I never said this actually happened and was after your claims anyway.

darkknight109 posted...

Weird how that didn't apply in our earlier argument when that concept was working against you.

But no, you're trying to stick me with a burden of disproof. You've constructed a fantasy situation where the family got tossed out and asking me to disprove that that happened. That's not how basic logic functions.

Nope. I never said anything like that. You made the original claim that the family was never kicked out so even if I had actually said they weren't you would have to prove it because you made the original claim.

darkknight109 posted...

So you think it would be OK for a teacher in an elementary school to pepper her lessons with various fucks and shits as long as she wasn't directly addressing a student at the time?

Again, most people have the emotional maturity to control when and where they swear and to bite their tongue if they're in an area where swearing would be inappropriate. Like in front of young children, for instance.

It would be valid if it was in pain. Your examples are all shit.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When neither have anything to support them, they're equally unproven. They are equally likely until further evidence is presented to support one or the other.

Equally unproven, yes. Equally unlikely, no.

I'm Superman. The comic books and movies are actually biopics of my life presented for the entertainment of the masses. There's my statement of claim.

Based on the information available, you can neither prove nor disprove that I am Superman. The claim "I am Superman" and "I am not Superman" are both equally unproven, but they are very much not equally unlikely.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The TC was there so his word carries weight.

And, notably, he said nothing about the other family getting thrown out, even when talking about who WAS thrown out as part of this confrontation.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

However that claim is easily fact checked and ruled out immediately

Said fact checking hasn't been done, so I'm afraid you'll still have to treat that claim as an equally valid possibility until you've gone out and interviewed the TC and the family in question to prove that they're still alive and weren't killed by ninja. Sorry. (You'd think something like that would be in the papers, but then again "absence of evidence" and all that...)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Doing nothing isn't doing something, I can see how this is difficult for you.

It's amazing how much I have to break this down, but fine.

Saying "She didn't have to do anything" is saying that her actions were unconstrained by any requirements; following that up immediately with "She had to leave him alone" is suddenly putting a requirement on her. You're now saying she does have to do something, that something being "leave him alone and ignore him". That's not doing nothing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I made an apples for apples comparative example I could do for you, you failed to take the bet against your nonsense

On the contrary, when you made your offer I told you to go ahead and swear at some kids if you thought that would help you. You never did (or if you did and got told off for it, you never posted as much) - if anyone bitched out, it was you.

But go ahead, run this experiment a few times for us if you're really that desperate to prove yourself right in an internet argument. Keep in mind the hazards of small sample size, so I'll expect a statistically valid sampling if you want me to take you seriously on this.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Schools aren't the real world lol

So go in front of your boss's kids or a client's kids and swear at them. If you find yourself on a news show, start dropping F-bombs. Go to a fancy restaurant and start swearing loudly. In all of those cases, you'll pretty quickly be educated on what people think of crass language.

There are situations where swearing is acceptable and situations where it isn't. In front of young kids is generally accepted as a situation where swearing is not acceptable, which is why kids movies do not have swears and footage aired for kids or in an environment where kids may be watching typically have the swears censored out.

I mean, think about it for a second - if they're not bleeping those swears for kids, who do you think they're doing it for?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

"I disagree because I don't do it" lol

So you don't know what a "style guide" is. Got it.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

She initiated so she is responsible.

He initiated the situation by swearing in front of her kids. The fact that said swears weren't directed at the family doesn't mean he didn't kick the whole thing off (the same way that if I cut in front of someone in line, even though I'm not directly confronting them at that point I'm still initiating a confrontation).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Had the woman slapped him across the face and spat on him then that response would have ended it, but she was still the aggressor

I'm.... honestly not sure what you're even trying to prove with this point. Had she slapped him and spat on him for that, that would be a disproportionate response, not to mention breaking several laws.

Revelation34 posted...

Nope. I never said anything about it except for "It sounded like he got in a fight with the husband so it was never about swearing that got him kicked out." I never said this actually happened and was after your claims anyway.

In Post 163, you claimed "Actually he never said they weren't thrown out too. If they actually fought then they would have been thrown out too" in response to me pointing out that the family wasn't thrown out.

I mean, if you're not accepting that the family was thrown out, fine, but that means you've been arguing about nothing for the last few posts.

Revelation34 posted...

You made the original claim that the family was never kicked out so even if I had actually said they weren't you would have to prove it because you made the original claim.

If you're going to ignore the "burden of disproof" bullshit and sticking with the idea of "first post loses", I'll point out that the first response to this topic that actually addressed the subject claimed that the friend wasn't in the wrong. So I guess that means that the friend WAS in the wrong, until you can prove that he wasn't. Which you can't because something like that is entirely subjective and, therefore, impossible to prove.

So... I win? Or are you ready to admit this is a really dumb line of logic?

Again, I don't have to prove that something didn't happen (or, to put it another way, I don't have to disprove that something did happen). Logical arguments aren't constructed that way.

Revelation34 posted...

It would be valid if it was in pain.

Pain is not a valid reason to get angry, unless it was caused by someone (which this instance wasn't). It is definitely not a valid reason to lose self-control.
---

Super_Thug44 posted...

i'm confused are revelation and kyuubi the same? They seem to post pretty frequently together (or at least within the same 5-10 minutes of each other)

---

darkknight109 posted...

In Post 163, you claimed "Actually he never said they weren't thrown out too. If they actually fought then they would have been thrown out too" in response to me pointing out that the family wasn't thrown out.

I mean, if you're not accepting that the family was thrown out, fine, but that means you've been arguing about nothing for the last few posts.

You flat out claimed they were thrown out. There was no information either way.

darkknight109 posted...

If you're going to ignore the "burden of disproof" bullshit and sticking with the idea of "first post loses", I'll point out that the first response to this topic that actually addressed the subject claimed that the friend wasn't in the wrong. So I guess that means that the friend WAS in the wrong, until you can prove that he wasn't. Which you can't because something like that is entirely subjective and, therefore, impossible to prove.

So... I win? Or are you ready to admit this is a really dumb line of logic?

Again, I don't have to prove that something didn't happen (or, to put it another way, I don't have to disprove that something did happen). Logical arguments aren't constructed that way.

There is no such thing as "burden of disproof" That is shit you made up. Burden of proof is on the person who makes the original claim. Even if it's something that everybody knows like the earth being round. You claimed the family wasn't thrown out so prove it.

darkknight109 posted...

Pain is not a valid reason to get angry, unless it was caused by someone (which this instance wasn't). It is definitely not a valid reason to lose self-control.

Prove it.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I'm Superman. The comic books and movies are actually biopics of my life presented for the entertainment of the masses. There's my statement of claim.

Based on the information available, you can neither prove nor disprove that I am Superman. The claim "I am Superman" and "I am not Superman" are both equally unproven, but they are very much not equally unlikely.

Based on current knowledge, sure. But if, somehow, a portal to the DC Universe existed and you just left said portal and hijacked this account, it would be 100% probable objectively. Based on what we know it is unlikely, but if that shit was true then isn't. What is objectively probable doesn't match what is probable to us if key truths are unknown.

darkknight109 posted...

And, notably, he said nothing about the other family getting thrown out, even when talking about who WAS thrown out as part of this confrontation.

Again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

darkknight109 posted...

Said fact checking hasn't been done, so I'm afraid you'll still have to treat that claim as an equally valid possibility until you've gone out and interviewed the TC and the family in question to prove that they're still alive and weren't killed by ninja. Sorry. (You'd think something like that would be in the papers, but then again "absence of evidence" and all that...)

That's my point? You can make unsubstantiated claims all you want but until anything is proven, it's as valid as that bs lol. moral of the story, don't make assertions without evidence of any kind.

darkknight109 posted...

Saying "She didn't have to do anything" is saying that her actions were unconstrained by any requirements;

No, it's saying her actions weren't forced by any requirement, but okay I will conceed, my wording was poor, she should have left him alone.

darkknight109 posted...

On the contrary, when you made your offer I told you to go ahead and swear at some kids if you thought that would help you. You never did (or if you did and got told off for it, you never posted as much) - if anyone bitched out, it was you.

You can't change the deal then say the other person broke it lol
---

darkknight109 posted...

So go in front of your boss's kids or a client's kids and swear at them. If you find yourself on a news show, start dropping F-bombs. Go to a fancy restaurant and start swearing loudly. In all of those cases, you'll pretty quickly be educated on what people think of crass language.

At, sure, in front of, not so much. You see, in the real world context matters, in fact you smeared your examples with context but don't see how that isn't apples for apples.

darkknight109 posted...

There are situations where swearing is acceptable and situations where it isn't. In front of young kids is generally accepted as a situation where swearing is not acceptable

definitely not a catch-all.

darkknight109 posted...

footage aired for kids or in an environment where kids may be watching typically have the swears censored out.

Tell that to Big Bang Theory tossing out bitches on breakfast TV.

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, think about it for a second - if they're not bleeping those swears for kids, who do you think they're doing it for?

The 50s? Or perhaps TV is held to a higher standard than an idiot in a supermarket? lol

darkknight109 posted...

So you don't know what a "style guide" is. Got it.

Unless you follow someone else's style guide, it's your decisions.
---

Revelation34 posted...

You flat out claimed they were thrown out. There was no information either way.

I have literally never claimed the family was thrown out. I've been arguing the exact opposite of that for a while now. Do try to keep up.

Revelation34 posted...

There is no such thing as "burden of disproof" That is shit you made up.

If you're not familiar with basic debate, I suppose that would seem like it's true. In reality, this has been around for quite a while. Russell's Teapot, which I alluded to earlier, is probably the most famous example.

Revelation34 posted...

Prove it.

You made the claim first (Post 141), so I guess that means that by your rules the burden of proof is on you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Different situation, different responsibility.

So what's different about it? If it's OK for kids to hear swearing, why does it make a difference if it's their teacher or some random guy in a supermarket?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Based on current knowledge, sure. But if, somehow, a portal to the DC Universe existed and you just left said portal and hijacked this account, it would be 100% probable objectively. Based on what we know it is unlikely, but if that shit was true then isn't. What is objectively probable doesn't match what is probable to us if key truths are unknown.

Sure. I don't disagree with any of this.

But you've tacitly admitted to what I'm saying - just because two things are equally unprovable doesn't mean they are equally unlikely. Sure, in some alternate universe where superheroes are real, my claim might hold more weight. Even then, though, it wouldn't be true to say they were equally unlikely.

For instance, let's take an example that's closer to the realm of possibility. Let's say that I'm actually claiming to be the TC's friend who got tossed out of the bar and I'll use that to back up my assertions. Is it possible? Sure. As unproven as the statement that I'm not the TC's friend? Of course. But are those two statements equally unlikely?

No. In fact, absent any proof to the contrary, a rational person would probably assume I'm lying through my teeth if I tried to make that claim. In essence, you're assuming that I'm not the TC's friend and even though that assumption is unproven and founded on no verifiable facts, the burden of proof is still mine to prove otherwise if I want to make that claim.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Again, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

And the family actually got killed by ninja.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

moral of the story, don't make assertions without evidence of any kind.

Yet you're doing the exact same thing. For instance, you're assuming that the TC is telling the truth and that the entire event wasn't just made up. Or that it didn't happen in a different way to what he said.

Those are not unreasonable assumptions, but they are still assumptions. You have no objective evidence for them, yet you're fine with using them anyways.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can't change the deal then say the other person broke it lol

You're sure loling a lot in this topic. You ever notice that? Are you not sure of your points or something?

Anyways, I didn't break the deal. I literally invited you to go ahead and do it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You see, in the real world context matters, in fact you smeared your examples with context but don't see how that isn't apples for apples.

Of course context matters. That's the whole point. If this guy had been, say, at his job on a construction site somewhere and done the same thing, it wouldn't have been a problem and unless he had some particularly devout co-workers, I doubt anyone would have objected to it.

It's not that swearing is objectively evil and never allowed, it's that the context of what he did - swearing in front of some young kids - was bad.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Tell that to Big Bang Theory tossing out bitches on breakfast TV.

I've never seen Big Bang Theory, but I'm pretty sure it's not a kid's show. That and "bitch" generally isn't seen as quite as serious of a swear as "fuck" (even GTA didn't put an F-bomb in their games until San Andreas).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or perhaps TV is held to a higher standard than an idiot in a supermarket?

Again, why? If it's totally OK for kids to hear swearing, why is not swearing considered "a higher standard"? That's like saying that politicians shouldn't eat papayas because they're being held to a higher standard - if eating papayas is OK, there's no reason why anyone should be barred from doing it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Unless you follow someone else's style guide, it's your decisions.

If it's a style guide you came up with, it's not a "generally accepted" style guide, unless you happen to be one of a handful of people on the planet creating widely followed style guides.

My occupation has me doing a lot of report-writing, so working to various style guides is something I'm intimately familiar with.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I have literally never claimed the family was thrown out. I've been arguing the exact opposite of that for a while now. Do try to keep up.

Nice try once again.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905519076

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905571509

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905630368

darkknight109 posted...

If you're not familiar with basic debate, I suppose that would seem like it's true. In reality, this has been around for quite a while. Russell's Teapot, which I alluded to earlier, is probably the most famous example.

You're the one who made the original claim which is how the burden of proof always works. It doesn't matter what another person says.

darkknight109 posted...

I've never seen Big Bang Theory, but I'm pretty sure it's not a kid's show. That and "bitch" generally isn't seen as quite as serious of a swear as "fuck" (even GTA didn't put an F-bomb in their games until San Andreas).

They used "cocksucker" in Vice city which is far worse than "fuck"
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I have literally never claimed the family was thrown out. I've been arguing the exact opposite of that for a while now. Do try to keep up.

Nice try once again.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905519076

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905571509

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76821379/905630368

From the first:
"Notably, the family was not asked to leave"

From the second:
"Weird how the other family wasn't thrown out as well"

From the third:

"Again, note that the other people in this confrontation were not asked to leave"

So congratulations on proving yourself exactly wrong.

Revelation34 posted...

You're the one who made the original claim which is how the burden of proof always works.

You can keep repeating this while ignoring all evidence to the contrary and it doesn't make you any more correct.

You can't ask me to prove that something you made up didn't happen. We were never told that the family was thrown out; ergo, they weren't thrown out, unless you can provide reason or evidence why that would not be so. If you want to allege that they were, in fact, thrown out, then the burden of proof to do so rests with you.

Revelation34 posted...

They used "cocksucker" in Vice city which is far worse than "fuck"

My memory of the game is far from encyclopedic, but I don't recall "cocksucker" ever being used in Vice City and a quick google search turns up nothing. That said, I don't know of anyone who considers "cocksucker" to be "far worse" than "fuck"; at most, they're considered roughly the same level of vulgarity. I can't think of too many cases where "fuck" would be seen as acceptable language, but "cocksucker" would be crass.

That all said, this is a meaningless side argument and you apparently completely missed my point with that statement if you think this in any way addresses what I was talking about.
---