Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6425039" data-attributes="member: 4937">In short, bullpucky.&nbsp; You are being disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and you continue to assert that discussing of this proves that the poster endorses the social mores in question.&nbsp; The structure of your post is darn clear.&nbsp; You begin with rhetorical questions directed against the poster you quote, and then you refute your rhetorical questions.&nbsp; To now claim that you quoted me, directed rhetorical questions toward me, and proceeded to a refutation, but didn't actually believe that I believed your straw man you set up to refute or had failed to grasp any of the things you felt the need expound on is&nbsp; ridiculous and contradicted by your own commentary about your internal reasoning.&nbsp; I could write a bunch proving that point, but what would be the point?&nbsp; The thing is self-evident. I can rely on EnWorld posters to see that for themselves.Sorry, no.&nbsp; Your thesis, &quot;People put up with crap because they had little choice, or hadn't yet conceived of something different. That doesn't mean they were happy about it.&quot;, could very well be a summary restatement of what I said.&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't have a leg to stand on here, since even your assertion that I needed to highlight further that pederasty is bad or treating women as sexual chattel is bad is ridiculous, or that I had a chance to do so but didn't speak in strong enough terms. Again, all you are proving is that I was right about how people behave when encountering this sort of material.You did beautifully illustrate through all your insults of other posters much of my thinking as to why Samloyal23 should not make use of the myth of Dahut in any form in his setting, time and time again, far better probably than I could have by trying to use dialectic methods and being respectful to him.&nbsp; For that, we can be thankful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6425039, member: 4937"] In short, bullpucky. You are being disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and you continue to assert that discussing of this proves that the poster endorses the social mores in question. The structure of your post is darn clear. You begin with rhetorical questions directed against the poster you quote, and then you refute your rhetorical questions. To now claim that you quoted me, directed rhetorical questions toward me, and proceeded to a refutation, but didn't actually believe that I believed your straw man you set up to refute or had failed to grasp any of the things you felt the need expound on is ridiculous and contradicted by your own commentary about your internal reasoning. I could write a bunch proving that point, but what would be the point? The thing is self-evident. I can rely on EnWorld posters to see that for themselves. Sorry, no. Your thesis, "People put up with crap because they had little choice, or hadn't yet conceived of something different. That doesn't mean they were happy about it.", could very well be a summary restatement of what I said. You don't have a leg to stand on here, since even your assertion that I needed to highlight further that pederasty is bad or treating women as sexual chattel is bad is ridiculous, or that I had a chance to do so but didn't speak in strong enough terms. Again, all you are proving is that I was right about how people behave when encountering this sort of material. You did beautifully illustrate through all your insults of other posters much of my thinking as to why Samloyal23 should not make use of the myth of Dahut in any form in his setting, time and time again, far better probably than I could have by trying to use dialectic methods and being respectful to him. For that, we can be thankful. [/QUOTE]

Verification