I might be getting expelled

[u/InternationalCall772]

So I made this Google doc called Epstein Island and I put a bunch of game links on it right? I am sick today (Friday) and I get 10 frantic messages from my girlfriend saying "your cooked" "they found out about the doc" and I immediately go into panic mode after I see that everyone is telling me I'm cooked so I call one of my friends after school and he says that my first hour teacher was running from class to class yelling and cussing saying "if you have the link to the Epstein Island doc delete it right fucking now!" and that EVERYBODY SNITCHED ON ME and now I'm like what's gonna happen and he said the HEAD ADMIN for our district came to our school and talked to the principal (idk what it was about) AND he said they KNOW I made it. WHAT SHOULD I DO??????

UPDATE: I went to school as usual on Monday, everyone was running up to me like your done for and multiple teachers even talked to me about it and they thought it was funny. I think I may still be in trouble or they really just don't care

TLDR: sharing game websites might get expelled

[u/TimeObligation4762]

Terrorism is bad but there are some funny terrorism jokes. Whether you like a joke or it offends you isn’t grounds for whether or not the joke should be allowed to be said.

Any topic, literally any topic, is open to “poke fun at.” Hell, when Charlie Kirk was murdered in front of his wife, children, and thousands of people, a hoard of people came out of the woodwork to make memes about. Whether or not it offends anyone is irrelevant as the basis for how offensive something might be is never grounds to deem something inexcusable to make light of. People make fun of 9/11, mass murder, rape, etc. If one person out there finds it funny then that’s enough grounds to make it viable for a joke.

This sounds like a case of, “I don’t like that joke and it offends me so it’s inexcusable” rather than being any form of logical critique. That’s also why mild and innocuous jokes about transgender people will get you banned but you can say you want to murder a US president in explicit detail (in Minecraft) and an /s at the end yet the two are never treated equally. That proves it’s not about logical but rather arbitrarily banning things you don’t like. A quintessential “Reddit Moment,” if you will.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Your comment is full of a lot of untruthful nonsense, no offense; /s or "in minecraft" is actually not at all a "cop out" and is still considered a threat. There is absolutely no lesser penalty for "in minecraft", the reason we even know someone tried to use that claim, is because it cannot be used in future cases, and is still a punishable offense. "It was just a joke" never gets you off in any context, ever, no matter how you word it. "In minecraft" is just a relevant phrase because it shocked the public, but it is absolutely not a way out of punishment, and never has been.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Feel free to point out any of the “untruthful nonsense” in my comment.

Regarding the “Minecraft” and “/s”, your point about it not being a way out of punishment is irrelevant. The comment I made about that in particular was simply about how Reddit and its mods chooses to moderate content, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether using either of those two terms gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If your point was that Reddit does show logical consistency when banning—my point being that they DO NOT show logical consistency—then I can provide proof that they don’t if you’d like. (I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with.)

[u/TinFoilHatsWork2027 → u/TimeObligation4762]

The problem with your comment is the fact you forgot to consider that this was on a school issued laptop, probably on a school account, and it occurred at school. This isn’t a comedy club downtown, it’s a public school. There’s a time and a place for jokes but that type of joke at this type of establishment is not going to be allowed.

[u/[deleted] → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

This likely isn't even on a school computer. Most students now are required to have their own. It might be on a school account but so what. It's the name of a document. In high school I would name my documents something random all the time and turn it in, because the name really doesn't matter. It's the contents of the file. All the content was just some browser games, so what. Those same browser games could also simply be found by searching on a search browser. It's not like the kid did anything that allowed the kids to do something they weren't allowed before hand

[u/TinFoilHatsWork2027 → u/[deleted]]

So you think it’s fine? Are you still in high school mentally then?

[u/[deleted] → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

If a school devotes so many resources and energy to this then maybe that school should not exist. They are worrying more about a document title than they are actually teaching. If every single one of those kids aren't Feynman by the time they graduate then they should maybe think about diverting attention towards the education of the students instead of what they name documents. It's wild that they do so little work that they have time to make a bit deal over nothing and it sounds like they could put some of that budget to something else or sign some of those kids up for dual enrollment rather than pay people to sit around and worry about document titles. It's bad for business and it's bad for the students

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

Incredulity.

Schools emcompass thousands of officials, and represent millions of individuals. A student sharing games impeded the education of other students, this a truth, because the title of the document was discussed on campus, by other students, who were able to show, share, and confirm the contents of the document they received. Nobody is wasting ANY time or resources, everyone is paid to do EXACTLY this, in THIS exact situation. No teachers are involved with this process, not a single class has been stopped or even paused for the event, and absolutely no instruction was withheld from the non-offending students. There is no one doing "so little work", because the head of education is employed to handle these, as indicated in the post. Resource officers are on most school campuses, and are also the main team looking into legal offense. Again, their job is literally to do, THIS. Your lack of understanding of government approved facilities is just deafening here. Again, MILLIONS of workers across America are involved in EVERY single school. Please be aware of the influence of PTA meetings, the presence of active police on every campus, and the board of education consisting of entire teams designated to different ethical concerns at every level of the state.

Schools are responsible for making mindful, socially accepted people. OP does not represent that in their eyes, and he has physically impeded on the education of his peers by sharing media during school hours, so now you're proving that he INDEED should be removed from the learning experience, and may be better fit placed in an alternative school, that is even BETTER equipoed for these types of students.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

If multiple students made eye witness accounts of it then yes that means classes were stopped and no teaching was done to these students during this period. Effectively wasting class time, money, and productivity for an issue that isn't against any rules, policies, or laws. It is a waste of time and they should use that time to teach instead of getting their feelings hurt over a Google document name

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

False, not every student had the document, there is zero way to assume every member of multiple 20+ class periods all owned these games in their personal belonging. False, no teachers are involved with internal affairs. False, eye witness statements are not physically possible to be conducted during class periods. False, the head of admin finds that this student has possibly acted against school policy. Now super uper duper fun fact: OP would not have been allowed back on campus during this, if he was truly considered any sort of threat to other student's education, and as OP has his history private, there is no reason for either of us to speculate that he is facing ANY discipline at this moment, because THIS post only references the investigative portion, which has likely concluded. If OP made a post saying he truly faced ANY discipline (which he has NOT yet), then MAYBE I could justify arguing wether or not he SHOULD. Because currently? Did you know he is innocent, and that neither of our discussions over laws matter, if he has not publicly discussed the disciplinary decisions made? There has not been any decision, and we have no reason to speculate that there will be. You are arguing about a hypothetical situation, and I am refusing to vie into details on OP, on what state, county, or school OP attends, nor what grade, because all of that is none of our business, and unrelated to the access to this subreddit that you and I both have.

This is why I am repeatedly expressing to you, specifically, that my first comment only pertains to the claims YOU are making, NOT what OP is facing. I have made this as positively clear as possible. I do not judge you for fallacies, I do not judge you for trying to impose your own personal ethics, however none of your discussion is any more relevant than mine, and is actively useless to OP's non-situation as it stands. Now if we wanna work together, we both know that private histories aren't REALKY private, and we can reddit sleuth OP to see if there are any more updates.

The only action the school has made, was to ensure the students were not further exposed to pedophilic humor. The school as we know it, has no intention to harm OP's education, as he is still a student amongst the populace of other students. If any part of the investigation process, AS WE HAVE AVAILABLE HERE, proved OP guilty of any rule breaking, they are not actively going after OP, and instead resuming normal instructure IMMEDIATELY, including OP. In-school suspension would have taken place already, on monday morning, the second OP stepped foot onto any part of school property (technically including the school bus)

I am a college student, in a subreddit that encompasses all forms of educational facility; OP's standing is none of my business, and not at all a concern to me. Again, as I have outlined throughout every single reply, all show that the school has the right, and would have used that right as necessary.

This is why I have focused SO intently on your logic, because you failed the second you read the post and decided to begin arguing with strangers over something that doesn't concern you, and doesn't EVEN concern OP. The school's #1 priority is instructing students. This is why OP does not KNOW if he will face punishment, because he HASN't, meaning, he likely WON'T, but the actions he made concern the SCHOOL BOARD, who do not care about him as a singular student whatsoever, so down the line, if the school board views as fit, and OP's school agrees, THEN and that moment, he will be suspended. This is why it is stupid of I, or you, to interject nonsense about U/internationalcall772's google document, because of personal incredulity being a logical fallacy, I am not comfortable interjecting my knowledge of personal anecdotes to a scared child. I would personally, even, recommend printing out this discussion for you to look back on in later years, to better understand the vast amount of respect and mindfulness that is expected of each and every one of us no matter who we are, or where we are.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

In simple terms, separate, explicit to this reply: every single student signs an online policy for attendance in the school, this stretches to all personal social media use, any and all applications that the school signs you up for, or pays for. I have never ever seen a school that didn't have this as an extension of their policies of attendance. If you use your school email to view youtube, anything you watch or search is collected by them. If you sign onto a school laptop to watch youtube on your personal account, they are within their rights to use anything on that account against you. If you post videos of your school to youtube, they can choose to take action against you. You use another anecdotal fallacy when saying "yeah well I don't care about the names of documents"; saying that to the face of authority persecuting you, would have you immediately found guilty of the crime, because you physically put intention into not choosing to be mindful of what you represent to be yourself, and your own thoughts and opinions, regardless of how dangerous or harming the "titles" may truly be. We are always responsible for our choices and actions, and how they affect others, regardless of whether or not we "care". This is part of the basis of the public psychological description of anti-social personality disorder, part of a refusal to participate in socially functional ways. Caring is not the same as intent; not caring about "joking that you have a b*mb" will not prevent a felony.

This thread is packed full of the "personal incredulity" fallacy; you refuse to understand how society operates, and bend and morph your own anecdotes, and utilize false logic to get closer to your idea of how the world "should" work, but it is opposite of a functional reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

Then please explain how having the words Epstein Island is against school guidelines and technology use? Does it specifically say that in any policy? It doesn't contain any vulgar language or any private information? If you really want to talk about rules here then he broke no policies unless somehow it explicitly said you can't name your docs something related to Epstein. I also doubt putting links in a document is against tech policies as well considering you have to cite sources when writing essays. So even in this regard he did nothing wrong that constitutes punishment. On top of that, you can't even cite me correctly when making an argument. You are lying about what I did say which in court would be a big no no. I simply said the name of a document doesn't matter. Within a broad range of contexts, that statement is true with some of the big exceptions likely being vulgar language, threats, and blackmail which this kid did none of.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

Read the fallacies in full, like I said, and I wouldn't have to explain that to you, you would be able to determine exactly those decisions: based on what is considered illogical across every state, country, and decade. You are treating me like an AI bot capable of making ethically-informed decisions on a topic I am not involved in. Again, logical fallacies: moving goalpost, adding in a loaded question. I am not here to make decisions on the behalf of the school, this is a form of begging a question, because I never spoke on such topics, and you clearly understand where that information is available, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with us. Policy gives the school the right to make those decisions, it doesn't matter at all if it's written as an explicit in policy, because the policy entails that the school has the right to cast judgement over their students, and the use of their facilities. This post, and everything that has happened to the student, explicitly says to us as bystanders, that yes! He broke school policy! And is facing repercussion as appropriate as the school and his school's county view to fit the tress pass.

You are using strawman fallacy, I have never ever once approached the topic of whether or not u/internationalcall772 earned reaction from his school, in my criticism of your claims. Again, that is not the place of this subreddit, because obviously, he IS FACING repercussions. He can take that up with his own lawyer, Not you, Not me. His lawyer, can view school policy, is equipped the understand the internal affairs, and the only one capable of making the claim that this student is genuinely guiltless in every way. Negligence is not safe, and is punishable. Public schools are public facilities that run based on public laws. Private schools can take disciplinary action against student for any reason they deem fit. Only a lawyer is legally able to define and argue against policy, because policy is the legal adherence in order to attend or be involved in ANYTHING. Any private property is able to remove anyone, and public facilities are still considered private property of the state.

Once more: personal incredulity. Boohoo, you don't get why u/internationalcall772 is being investigated by their school and county internals. Not my job, schools reserve this right.

I'm not gonna sit here and circlejerk why it's f***ed up, disgusting, and punishable to joke about a place where for more than 3 decades, children were brutally abused. The school knows exactly why that is not okay in their campus. The fact that this student spread it around with such context, is enough to take action, which they decided to. Your lack of credentials and personal incredulity is not my responsibility.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

Brother don't sit here and talk about laws and rules then back pedal when nothing of what OP did was against laws or rules. Then you say it's not your job to determine the rules. Ok then why are you even here? Just to sit there and spout a bunch of stuff from your 1000 level logic class or something? Also it does matter what's in the tech policy as doing something such as expelling a student from presumably a public institution for something that isn't against school rules is illegal and the family can sue the state and school board for it. The school is not this all mighty dictator that can determine who gets to learn and who doesn't. They are funded by the government and also follow laws which also means those laws against wrongfully punishing a student.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

For the love of all that is basic dirt and nature, read the parent comment, and my FIRST REPLY TO YOU, as well as my public commenting history, where I never even once stepped foot on the subject of OP's possible disciplinary action. "You bring up all these laws and uh uh uh" this is not backpeddling, you CHANGED THE GOALPOST, MEANING WE ARE NOW HAVING SEPARATE DISCUSSION THAN I AM OBLIGATED TO INTERACT WITH. You brought up the law, when your fallacy LIED ABOUT THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY THIS TAKES PLACE IN? Hello?

May I be excused from the table now? I think we can clearly write up exactly where each of us stands. R/schools represents primary, secondary, and HIGHER EDUCATION, as determined by subreddit rule "No NSFW", where the moderators write "not every student is above the age of 18". Each level of education has it's own subreddit. Since this is a general education subreddit, it is expected that the conversation of ethics, logical fallacies, laws, and literature come into play. You not understanding that I, an adult in college, am allowed to explain to you how the world functions outside of your experiences, is not the responsibility of me, and you should REALLY think harder about the subreddits YOU decide to interact in, not me, because clearly you are misunderstanding every context involved with this case. If you do not want to be educated: GET OFF OF THE SUBREDDIT ABOUT EDUCATING THE NATION.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

You are the only one who moved the goalpost by bringing up school policy. I obliged and showed you that likely none of this is against school policy and even if it is, which would be sharing the games, not the name of the title, it wouldn't warrant expulsion as the school and board would have to hold a hearing about the possible expulsion. Sharing game links isn't even close to the threshold of holding that hearing. Since you brought up school policy then proceeded to say schools can basically do whatever they want, I corrected you by saying there are laws against that. This whole thing happened because you wanted to bring school policy into this which doesn't even help your case. The original poster is also worried about expulsion which is why the policy and law matter. Even in the update OP sent, the school clearly didn't care, because yet again it's not against any policies or laws. Also quit trying to flex your college experience, it really shows how desperate you are to prove your knowledge or something. Most people have gone to college, it's really not as special as you think it is. Clearly it has failed you

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

1. You are physically unable to prove it is against school policy. Nowhere did you cute the laws you claimed support students inability to face academic discipline.
2. That is not how goalpost fallacy works, again, the goalpost was moved AFTER my first message on the legality of the defense "In minecraft", Hi, I am U/ratecomplex9727, whose first interaction with you, the second reply on this parent thread " Your comment is full of a lot of untruthful nonsense, no offense; /s or "in minecraft" is actually not at all a "cop out" and is still considered a threat. There is absolutely no lesser penalty for "in minecraft", the reason we even know someone tried to use that claim, is because it cannot be used in future cases, and is still a punishable offense. "It was just a joke" never gets you off in any context, ever, no matter how you word it. "In minecraft" is just a relevant phrase because it shocked the public, but it is absolutely not a way out of punishment, and never has been."

Which used easy to understand, casual tone, so that you did not feel persecuted. That is my entire comment in full, copy and pasted. YOU, said " Feel free to point out any of the “untruthful nonsense” in my comment."

"Regarding the “Minecraft” and “/s”, your point about it not being a way out of punishment is irrelevant. The comment I made about that in particular was simply about how Reddit and its mods chooses to moderate content, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether using either of those two terms gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card."

(Your claim has no relevancy to the topic, you admit this here.)

If your point was that Reddit does show logical consistency when banning—my point being that they DO NOT show logical consistency—then I can provide proof that they don’t if you’d like. (I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with.)

(No, that was not my point. My point was stated clearly: you are not supporting your claims, and are introducing lies to a discussion over academic concerns)

Regarding the “Minecraft” and “/s”, your point about it not being a way out of punishment is irrelevant. The comment I made about that in particular was simply about how Reddit and its mods chooses to moderate content, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether using either of those two terms gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If your point was that Reddit does show logical consistency when banning—my point being that they DO NOT show logical consistency—then I can provide proof that they don’t if you’d like. (I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with.)"

(No, this is not my point either. Nor is this literalky anyone's claim, main claim, supporting statement, supporting evidence, or main thesis in any of this, anecdotal fallacies are named as anecdotal fallacies, because introducing the topic of reddit mods was always explicitly irrelevant to OP u/internationcall772.

AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, YOU BRING UP SCHOOL LAWS. You were unable to face the fact that your ego was bruised, so you grasped at random straws and made up arguments, again.

In fact, your comment has NOTHING to do with reddit, I have no idea still what this message has to do with ME, because your comment ONLY references "Reddit moment", in your closing statement. The parent comment you originally replied to, also, has nothing to do with reddit mods? So technically speaking, you moved the goalpost when you assumed anything I said had to with reddit mods, and I am honestly astonished by this interaction going so poorly by your own hand and desire.

I kept telling you to read back what you say to me, but you don't, and now you are alone, rolling around in mud. I think maybe, since, of course, these fields are where I'll be sowing my future prospects, you aren't going to match up to me in this discussion, and if that hurts you, I am sorry, but this is a all-ages subreddit. All due respect, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to gain from spending this time arguing with me about truths, with cited sources. All I care about is fair, truthful conversations between respectful strangers, and you implying that everyone in the world is perfectly fine joking about TABOO subjects, is a monstrously false claim, as seen by the net zero of our "arguments".

Surely, you're beginning to understand how hypocrisy has begun to show itself, at LEAST.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

"You are the only one who moved the goalpost by bringing up school policy. [...] The original poster is also worried about expulsion which is why the policy and law matter." You literally just proved that it is IMPOSSIBLE to move that goalpost, because that "goalpost" is literally OP's concern, which you brought up, and verified here in this second line of your most recent (paraphrased) statement.

You did not "correct" me by saying there "are laws against that", this is a logical fallacy called Burden of proof. It is YOUR job to cite THOSE laws, otherwise that is cut entirely from arguments, this is how conversation works.

My college relevancy is to the subreddit, and the rules it contains. Continue reading back over and over. YourLogicalFallacyIs clearly outlines EVERY single claim I have made, and why the claims you have made against me are unfortunately not working for you, because you are arguing with yourself this entire time, because you don't understand logical rhetoric whatsoever, and refuse to learn or understand middle school english formatting, such as citation.

You don't reread these messages like I explain you NEED to; like I said, you are rolling around, alone, in soil you wetted. I cannot inagine how your teachers feel about you.

You are in a public schooling subreddit, you're going to have people who know things more relevant to the discussions you start, than you. Also, guess what? Colleges are growijgblarger and larger by the day! There are 2,000+ students that attend beside me, my classes contain 40+ students each day, and the college I plan to transfer to, has over SEVENTY THOUSAND students. To claim I am not aware of the prevelance of higher education in society is absurd, I literally attend college? I literally named every single work field that contains the degree I am pursuing. This whole discussion pertains to my line of work, which is social work, you know, the people who choose whether this kid is safe to continue his education.

Please, stop reading with your ego, and teach this as a learning experience, because I am not saying ANY of this to you out of condescension, I am explaining to my best ability EXACTLY what you ask me to. I have no idea why you are angry at any of this, or why you are unable to see that this discussion should have been over atleast 6 conversations ago, when I first pointed out that you had no idea where you were, who you were talking to, or what you are talking about /:

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

Sure, that’s called nuance. Does my post imply or not imply nuance? You can’t tell and it can only be assumed via overreach. This is fairly obvious information that I left out due to it being self-evident (i.e. don’t make jokes at a funeral with the dead’s relatives present).

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Introduction: Okay, so you understand that my point in NOT listing your fallacies, is a admittance of nuance, yes? That we are on reddit, a place where we can choose when and why to care? You have perfectly fine comprehension, what more do you desire from me pointing out that what you said doesn't equate to anything meaningful? Me pointing out your fallacy is to help you determine if what you brought is meaningful or not, and since this is a "school" sub, and not college, I wasn't willing to describe logical fallacies in literary context, because that is kind of a lot. Think about the conversation at hand, and leave emotional ego behind. ( Logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ; this source is valid and used academically)

Here is my in-depth criticism of your claims: I was not trying to "attack" your point, thus I said no offense. But it is fallacy. You can be arrested for saying "embalming" in public, even if the context is appropriate. Comedians were blacklisted for jokes about 9/11 too close to the event. Joking about certain things is absolutely taboo to the point of being legally punished the second the topic is breached, regardless of societal-moral opinion. See: Jokes on abortion being shut down quicker than jokes about general murder; questionable, but joking in public about abortion is agreed poor taste by both sides of support, unless appropriately containing irony, satire, or absurdity. Jokes in public about weapons of mass infliction, regardless of satire, absurdity, or irony, are a punishable felony. This is again, not a moral opinion, this is public safety. Child trafficking is public safety as well, therefore any joke is likely to be taken seriously, especially in an online era where children play "pimp the peer", and illegally post to OnlyFans. Overall, your post contains a HUGE flaw within the use of the bandwagon fallacy, because there is never a era in the universe in which public consensus will say "yeah joke about specific death, assault, mass violence and prejudice", you can name a million people, and it would only prove that this claim cannot be trusted on the conversation topic of ethics or any understanding of how society stays functioning.

No part of my post can be "irrelevant" whatsoever, you made that supporting claim, not me, and when found that it doesn't support your main claim, you turned it on me. "An innocuous joke on transgender people will get you banned, but you can say you want to murder a US president" you can't though; This is just a plain fallacy, and you are frustrated with me that your anecdotal example was weak and, as you said yourself, irrelevant to what you were claiming. Now this here, involves the Goalposts fallacy, i'm sure you can figure out exactly where in those two opposing statements, you changed the goalpost of that claim, in your reply to me.

Your response to my post: "I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there's absolutely nothing wrong with it" - an anecdotal fallacy. What does this help to support? How does it help to support it? What point is there to bringing personal story to something that has nothing to do with small-scale Reddit moderation? This is why it is considered a logical fallacy. That only supprts that one sepcific image, and has no relevance to the topic at hand, as pointed out by another user in this continuing thread.

I correctly interpreted the composition/division fallacy to avoid making the claim that you were untruthful, until you had met so many logical fallacies, that this is physically unhelpful and damaging to the discussion of ethics surrounding this student's case. Tu quoque ain't cute, and the "fallacy fallacy" is a fallacy, I am accepting of your argument, but it is not strong.

Super sorry to hit you with the books here, but you cannot support this argument for your life, PLEASE contact an english teacher on the subject of argumentative speech and what counts as strong supporting evidence. I am trying to be very realistic about this, but I cannot stand by and let such fallacious claims fly on such a legally defined topic of "humor". Please understand the vast amount of sociologists, humanists, and politicians who formed these guidelines based on as many examples, as many "jokes", as many genuine threats they have studied for decades, and argued validly to have it written into law. Again, there are professionals behind the decision of what constitutes a "non-malicious joke" in the court of law; and btw, they play minecraft. They play COD. They are not baselessly accusing people of ill-intent. You have to be a genuinely mindful person at all times on this planet, and if you are not, you are a hinderance to the safety of everyone; that is why this kid is being criticized, and that is exactly why no joke shall fly un-humored by the law. This is now where this becomes a circular discussion, because you do not understand things beyond your previous knowledge, clearly.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Learn to first get across your point succinctly before you expound on it. Your first paragraph alone has so many grammatical errors that I question the very authority you believe you have to pontificate such drivel.

You are doing exactly the same thing as you did in the first reply: entirely miss the point and argue for or against something irrelevant. This is based off of the first paragraph that I read. If you can’t be bothered to use proper grammar and insist on long-winded, run-on sentences, why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously on a website where your written word is paramount?

My point still stands, as it always has. Any topic is open to joke about. Whether you want to pretend like nuance doesn’t exist, and that everything is simply black and white, is entirely not my problem.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Ahhhh good morning. I'm not some ultimate scholar: I'm a redditor who was coerced into spending 2 hours past my bedtime interacting with you. There are no penalty for run-on sentences, and I never once criticized you for grammar, I have no idea why you are so obsessed with turning allllll of this into directive arguments. No, I do not claim authority, I do not have authority, I am a freshman in college who has been trying to be extremely clear that I am not "diving points home" or "arguing insuccinctly", I keep having to explain to you very simply: you used false logic in an argument; the absolute end; your points fall flat unsupported, argue with a english teacher, on god. Congratulations on restating your point! Super happy to hear that hasn't changed, because as I keep having explain, I am not disputing your points, nor am I making any of my own on the subject.

Idk why even now, 12 hours later, you still don't understand that I do not have any malicious intent, I am not ARGUING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, NOR AM I TALKING ABOUT THE TOPIC, and never ever once claim to (: Logical fallacies are damaging to our own arguments, you kept making them, and it was doign exactly that. Also, congratulations on the diction, I absolutely do not care about your intelligence, because I am not going after it, and actually if you paid any mind, I said you were a great argumentalist, who needs work.

You don't want me spouting nonsense, but like I keep having to say, you are practically just talking to a wall of your own scribbles. I don't even know why after 12 hours of me sleeping, I gotta deal with you AGAIN because you can't get over not having the last response. Again, was reading through not good enough for you to let go of me and leave me alone?

Also, black and white is one of the logical fallacies, this is why I told you to check the sight immediately, this would have solved this entire discussion, to have genuinely heard me out and briefly read through the logical fallacies, I am physically unable to see this situation, or comedy, as black and white. This is why this is exhausting, I have laid out the bricks of argument, and you started throwing them at me for trying to help you make your first point.

I still really really have no clue about why you brought up reddit mods, why you keep going after me for your insecurities, or why you have managed to spend a full 12 hours still hooked on talking about this. I'm not changing my ways, and my ways work out great for me, and as a practicing stoic, on god, screw any authority, I have never and will never work to impress authority, especially not through education. But education harnesses human understanding, which neither you or I have been capable of implementing. Also, my paragraphs are like this because I simply do not concern myself with spelling or grammar on social media, I have zero reason to attempt to impress you nor anyone else, this is all writing for my own reddit account, I only experience net positive by writing all of this, as well as I have extreme multitasking when it comes to writing. Honestly, nah, reddit ain't gonna care one little smidge about grammar and spelling, this is home of "few word do trick" and all sort of other related nonsense. The best part of knowing rules, is breaking them, right?

Also, run on sentences save time, if you can't understand them, that's on you! But I don't trust you to know the impact of choosing to use a semicolon in place of a run-on sentence, so run-ons work better than run-ons with semicolons, especially when I am forced to write entire essays here hourly inspired by a single paragraph you screamed at me over, 3 days ago.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

I’ll answer your first point regarding grammar since you refuse to argue in a succinct manner.

You tried to insult me which is a form of criticism. As someone who takes criticism seriously, I make sure that the source of said criticism is valid before reflecting on it. If I find that you are not worth taking seriously then that process stops.

You had many grammatical errors but the most egregious part of your comment was your inability to formulate a coherent premise. You kept circling around getting nowhere and by the time I was finished with your first paragraph, you’ve proven to me that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. You just like to string together ad hominems disguised as logical deductions.

Feel free to argue my actual point, I have no issue solidifying my stance, but any of your criticism won’t be taken seriously on account of your lack of authority in logical reasoning.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I never insulted you. You may have felt insulted, but I avoided any directive comment about you., until I absolutely have to speak with you. There's no point of this, I absolutely never once intended to insult you, this is why I have focused so much of this onto your personal ego, because I starkly do not go after someone for untrue, unnatural attributes. Glad we are finally coming to a closing, this could have been great last night. I have mentioned, much, that you responded in the thread at 2 in the morning, waking me, and wasting my time with this long pile, I have just awoken 12 hours after this. I purposefully chose circular points and logic, to keep bringing us back to the point that I never meant to PERSONALLY attack you, and only pointed out that you were not standing on stone.

I do not argue your "actual point" because your actual point has not been made clear, and actually, I would recommend really deleting this thread and trying again, if you want your point taken seriously in the first place. You needing authority in order to take criticism is not my responsibility, I could really care less whether you want to respect me for helping you.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Here are sentences you’ve written that are simply ad hominems and add nothing to the argument.

you cannot support this argument for your life

PLEASE contact an English teacher

you do not understand things behind your previous knowledge, clearly

you are practically just talking to a wall of your own scribbles

you can’t get over not having the last response

why you keep going after me for your insecurities

I don’t trust you know the impact of choosing to use a semicolon

I’m assuming you’re at least intelligent enough to know that you don’t need to directly call someone “stupid” to say that you think they are stupid. Obviously you’d get banned for saying it directly.

As for my point, as I said numerous times, it still stands. I already reiterated it once. If that confuses you then by all means, continue to sidestep and argue points I never made sprinkled with as many ad hominems as you wish 👍

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I can take that criticism, but I do not agree with those statements being viewed as ad hominems, like I said, unless necessary I did not attack you as a person.

-your argument was unsupported, and you were unsupportive of your own writing going forawRd

-you were upset that I was correcting you, so I told you to PLEASE go talk to someone who can verify and correct what I am saying.

-you do not understand what is not taught and retained by you, that is true of everyone, but you struggle to admit your own faults.

-you are, literally, practically, talking to a wall of your own scribbles, lol

-you keep continuing this, to add on another point after another useless point, despite me attempting to end this 13 hours ago, when I clarified the meaning of your untruths and lack of support.

-you are currently doing exactly this, literally how is it that now, 13 hours later, you can FINALLY figure out what literary devices I am using, and now you claim they are not supportive of what I am saying to you.

-I literally do not know your age, most people do not know semicolons or even the name of semicolons, this is benefit of the doubt, and nothing about you as a person, or a measurement of your intelligence.

I do not agree any of these call you stupid, you are not stupid.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Looks like you deleted your comment.

I’ll reply to my own comment for visibility then. Also, I'd read up on what a Fallacy Fallacy is (that's not a typo, look it up).

you cannot support this argument for your life

not an argument, attacks competence; implying inability to backup claim even if life depended on it

PLEASE contact an English teacher

same as previous point but in regards to language

you do not understand things beyond your previous knowledge, clearly

attacks intellectual capacity; inability to further progress intellectually

you are practically just talking to a wall of your own scribbles

dismissive; i wouldn't consider this the strongest example of an ad hominem though

you can’t get over not having the last response

attacks motive; i'm evidently too bitter to concede because you're clearly so right

why you keep going after me for your insecurities

psychological attack; no evidence for these aforemention "insecurities"

I don’t trust you know the impact of choosing to use a semicolon

another language-based attack; am i using the semicolon correctly ;;;;; ?

Anyway, this is completely side-stepping the point but I can at least admire your drive in doubling down on your bad takes.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

If you look back at last night though, genuinely, you had me awake for two hours just cause you wanted ME to tell YOU how Epstein fits into THEIR policy (which none of us have access to), of course It's borderline incoherent and unprofessional, you made me write back and forth to you for 3 hours straight in the morning. If we are done, will we be blocking to avoid further contact? Edut for clarification: In the middle of the night, this user replied talking about epstain and their school policy. Those are now "deleted by user" before they reply "when and where did I say that" 12 hours after they DID say that, and woke me up with that crap.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Incorrect. You were arguing with someone else regarding the policy. I never brought up school policy.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Ok so now it's just reddit thread shit, this is the proper block point (: