>>75947218>And no, logic and out of context fallacies isn't part of the English curriculum. Learn logic.Anon, both of those things are literally part of the American English curriculum -- not in the way you are (again incorrectly) jokingly implying, but learning what these are conceptionally is taught in HS/college. You are factually incorrect. Additionally, neither apply to my original post.
Since I now need to teach TWO people how to read English, I will break it down nicely for you.
What that anon, and now you, are unable to understand is a slightly contextual post, but still perfectly understandable with all given information in this thread. Let's break down why you're a dumbass in real time.
>it's gonna be 2 years until they finally play modded survivalThis is the base thought that is being refuted by the original (my) comment. Some context is required to understand what "modded survival" means, but that context is given by the OP. If you simply do not know what Minecraft is, that's a you problem and you should shut the fuck up at this point. Moving forward, a reply is made to this base thought.
>Anon, they are literally using mods as we speak. Minecraft doesn't have in-game voice support.It is immediately obvious by the first sentence that this anon (me) disagrees with the base thought, claiming the holos are playing Minecraft on a server with mods enabled (this is a fact). The anon (me) then goes on to continue his thought by making the point in the second sentence that Minecraft does not have in-game voice support. It is not explicitly said, but it is again implied that this means "built-in support." The only way for these two sentences to NOT be part of the same complete thought is if, for instance, that anon (me) wrote something like this instead: "Minecraft *just* doesn't have in-game voice support." The "just" here is extremely important in that it separates the two sentences. The only way to not arrive at the conclusion that these two sentences are related, despite not using a comma to separate the thoughts, is by jumping through mental hoops. This isn't a massive "logical" leap, you literally just read the posts in order. Neither is it a "fallacy" (a word I don't think you fully understand the definition of). I have given both of you extremely clear reasons for what my post means and why it means what it does. This could only be a fallacy if I wasn't *literally* the original author of the post. There are only two interpretations of my post: correct, and incorrect, and I'm the one who gets to define what is correct. This entire"problem" was simply caused by you two not knowing what "context clues" are.
In conclusion: both of you are retarded.
