Topic: Off-topic /
Gabidou Vs Mikkmar Argument Containment Thread
It’s certainly the biggest thing that it did to help me learn English.
The “biggest thing” it did? What else did it do to help, then?
You must have trouble reading then.
Yes, I have trouble reading shit this tightly packed with errors.
IT IS a question though
What are you asking me when you say “I rarely do it at all?”? It’s just a statement with a question mark at the end.
You should be proud I corrected it.
… What? Why?
You can’t just see that you did a mistake and 100% memorize it immediately.
You certainly should know that they like to post ponies, “ponified memes” shit and other things like that.
And I don’t pretend I know any more than that.
I’ve seen a ton of furries, and they like to post bipedal characters with terrestrial-animal
I’ve seen enough quadrupedal furshit. I can give you some links if you want them.
Except it’s a fact dipshit
Then prove it. Link me to some evidence.
When people in planet earth talk about animals they talk about real animals unless they talk about something fictional.
“When people talk about apples, they talk about real apples unless they’re talking about fictional apples”
I don’t see your point. There are real things and there are fictional things. If you’re not talking about one, then you’re talking about the other.
And that’s why people always assume you’re talking about terrestrial animals when you mention “animals”.
Right. But as furries are clearly fictional, we can toss this right into the trash.
I don’t see how context matters in “do you like animals” discussions
Well, in the context of asking someone what their favourite animal is, they’re likely to assume that you mean “what animal that we are aware of that exists (or has existed) do you like best?” since the person asking that likely isn’t some sort of demented furfag.
In the context of a wiki page dedicated to fictional beings and which has the words “mythical creatures” right next to the word “animal”, you don’t have any reason to assume that this is based solely on existing life.
Why are you bringing it up if you keep contradicting yourself with it?
Dude, did you even read anything past the first paragraph? Did hamuka’s explanation not get through to you?
I suggest you read the article before linking it again.
That won’t change the facts themself.
… It certainly won’t, but as I said, why would you believe in something that relies almost completely on assumptions if you think facts are so important?
You assume: Garde is furry and that Autism affect/worsen my English with no evidences.
- Those are two completely seperate discussions
- I already conceded that if it’s not your autism, then it’s your shitty French-Canadian education.
And I actually know about myself and I already explained that Autism HELPED my English, not worsening it.
Just like alcoholics know themselves and know they can quit at any time?
and/or the equivalent of “animals” in other “worlds”.
He didn’t even once imply that they were supposed to be equivalents of any sorts.
It’s not a “personal definition”.
Then why does this definition not appear in written form anywhere online?
I’m afraid you’re the one that don’t seems to know shit about furries. I have seen furries and I know what furries do and what they like.
And I’m an actual furry. I think I outrank you on this.
They are similar but not the exact same thing.
None the less, both definitions would imply that you basically said that it was common.
You’re assuming it does?
You’re assuming that a certain quality applies to X while I assume that, due to a lack of evidence to support that, it doesn’t.
And there is nothing out there that say it does, so why’re you assuming that it does?
Because of what I said above. It is unwise to make assumptions that change what you know of things without any evidence to support it, if that makes sense.
You’re not in a better position
I’m not assigning new qualities to something without any evidence to support it.
Then why the fuck are you so determined to try to convince me Gardevoir is furry if you are aware you have no evidences that it does apply to fictional “animals” as well?
Why are you so determined to try to convince me that Gardevoir isn’t a furry if you’re aware that you have no proof that animals are purely terrestrial?
And why are you generalizing Quebec just because I piss you off?
It sounds like you’re trying to answer your own question.
Ask people that live in Canada and aren’t from Quebec what they think of it. It’s not just me.
They aren’t earth animals and doesn’t replace them, that’s the point.
… Once again, what’s your point?
I defends my claim. What’s the problem?
You’re sort of telling me that I need to prove that your silly claims regarding animals are false, despite the burden of proof being upon you rather than me.
Try reading the articles I link to you. You linked me to that bullshit pastebin and told me to read that, yet you won’t read the Wiki articles I link to you?
And there is not more or less reasons to believe your “it apply to fictional animals too!” claim either.
It is not a claim by itself, but a counterclaim to your claim that furries are based solely on existing animals.
Because Gardevoir is not furry and making Gardevoir (and all other Pokemon, even magnetmite) furry just because of ""Animals" apply to fictional characters too!!" would be stupid.
I’m not sure why you think a chunk of metal is anthropomorphic, Gabidou.
Outside of 4chan being known for being stupid, ignorant, etc, most of the communities/people I’ve seen don’t think Gardevoir is furry.
Most of the furry (and furry porn) communities I’ve seen consider Pokémon furries.
Is this supposed to be funny?
I told you how you could be more clear, didn’t I?
I’m literally just laughing at you saying stupid shit like “It put results on the view-able area of the screen, with my face looking at the screen” in this chain, not making arguments.
I’m pretty sure “decent” was positive everytime I’ve seen it used.
Gotcha. That takes you off the “decent” list in my books.