Let’s address intent and context. How can text accurately convey intent when that doesn’t always convey a person’s thoughts? What about context?
Which two thirds of your points, and which context, have I supposedly ignored?
When you keep sprinkling targeted mockery among your claims, what’s wrong with me calling that added mockery a personal attack? How was I supposedly passive-aggressive? We’re both snarking, so no “rules for thee, but not for me”, please. We can either both snark at each other, or drop the snark, what say you?
If I said I don’t see the relevance of the question to the conversation at hand, so I decline to answer”. Would you accept that or accuse me of avoiding your points?
We’ve both repeated points on this thread, so what explanations have you given that I supposedly haven’t responded to?
I found your use of the word “goo” strange because the cinematic’s Lightforging was shown in energy form, not liquid form. Now do you see why I accused you of making another sex parallel?
Attacked vs attacker depends on the situation. If one person punches another in the face, do you think it acceptable for the punched person to decapitate their attacker?
The situations aren’t the same. Don’t you see the huge difference between Argent Crusaders getting killed and having their souls melted into spellfood by sadistic demons verses an elf-demon hybrid having their fel magic non-fatally replaced with the Light by one single-minded Naaru?
Since I have condemned Xe’ra’s forcefulness with Illidan, I think that answers the question of where I stand on consent with the in-game holy figures we’re discussing, what made you think my arguments were painted as not caring about consent? Which six posts are you talking about?
Thank you for clarifying your problem with my use of singulars over plurals. I’ll use the suggestion you presented in future where required.
I have made counterarguments to your counterarguments; ones you haven’t addressed, which I why I said you haven’t made counterarguments. A poor choice of words, not a lie.
The Draenei’s so-called side of the story from that scenario is one cherry-picked sermon. This reminds me of what you said about time skips on that thread (see below). I agreed with everything you said there as of this comment, so I’ll just add what you stated as bad examples of time skips.
The Mag’har and AU Draenei situation is one of those badly written time skips. Following the ending of WoD with the Iron Horde dismantled and their leader stupidly let of scot-free, we skip to 30 years later and are told that the Draenei just got over all the Iron Horde’s war crimes, the Mag’har who fiercely resisted the Iron Horde fell in lockstep under the Iron Horde’s former leader, the Draenei are waging a holy war and Durotan’s conveniently dead with us not knowing the full context of that event. Your summary leaves out a few things, including Draenei reparations for the Iron Horde and AU Grom being alive and unpunished.
Saying the Draenei endanger multiple worlds by landing there when the Legion is pursuing them sound like victim-blaming, were you blaming the Draenei for the Legion’s actions? Why shouldn’t the Draenei be able to flee violent persecution and immigrate to a new world and settle there? Are you saying it’s their fault that their attempts to hide from the Legion failed?
The Burning Legion seeks to obliterate the entire universe; they’d seek and destroy those worlds even if the Draenei never set sight or hoof there.
You didn’t need to bring up the road of that joke about Christianity in this discussion, and even mentioning the option can be used as veiled attack. I see why you misunderstood my use of the word “strawman”, which was based on your assumptions and misunderstandings. Some were so blatant that I had to think “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…”
The words “seem”, “think” and “feel like” can, at times, be slippery words easily used to put a veil over mockery or accusations, thus making them passive aggressive.
While I’ll ask more about what you mean, if you could address everything I say instead of going on tangents about cherry-picked sentences and drop the passive aggressiveness - if you want to accuse, just accuse - we would have more comprehensive and productive discussions.
Snarl words (and their positive counterpart purr words) are a way of speaking; highly connotative language often used as a substitute for serious thought and well-reasoned argument. They’re not limited to media or politics.
Defamation is lying about someone to damage their reputation, it’s not just the type that someone can be sued for. And you, and others, have done that to me on these forums. How is any of that word use “deflecting accountability”?
Constructive criticism is well reasoned feedback usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. Trying to “soften” accusations or mockery by framing them as opinions like you just did is not constructive criticism. At best it’s misguided, at worst it’s gaslighting. If you really want to give me constructive criticism, use the method I described above instead of what you used, Renautus.