-
That the new testament gospels depict a Jesus who is implicit that he is God time and time again, even referring to himself as “Son of Man” an allusion to the prophecy of Daniel in which the character A Son of Man wields power and authority reserved only for God.
-
Sylvanas Windrunner’s Corpse Was expletived by Dar’khan
This is exactly what she did to Anduin RE Zovaal
Zorvaal isn’t trying to have sex with Anduin.
This shouldn’t even be an arguement. I should not even be having to say this.
The United States legal system disagrees with your definition. As a single example among many, many others; flashers regularly are charged with and convicted of sexual assault.
But if he did, Sylvanas didn’t care
First, I don’t really think you believe these are equal. I think far better of you than that.
Second, Zovaal left Anduin with Sylvanas… so he’s Arthas in this scenario and she’s Dar’khan.
She dominated him to Zovaal’s will.
Is this the hill you are going to die on? That IF Zorvaal was trying to have sex with Anduin than Sylvanas would be similarily evil?
This has been one heck of a whataboutism.
She sure did. And if that is equivalent to sexual assault, then Renautus is still right.
I agree! My point here is that if these things that happened to Sylvanas are analogous to rape, then when she herself does them to others that analogue also needs to be applied.
If they aren’t analogous, then what happened to her isn’t analogous either.
It’s about consistency.
But Zorvaal wasn’t trying to have sex with Anduin…
The things she did to Anduin, koltira, etc are not rape allegories. Why are you still struggling with this?
Specifically, flashing someone is Indecent Exposure.
If there is any physical contact, it would be Sexual Assault. Indecent Exposure, and flashing someone are… harder to peg, and would generally be considered a misdemeanor.
As such, it’s rules and laws are handled at the state level, and generally require proof of intent.
The prosecution must prove an intent to sexually arouse, sexually insult or upset someone, if this were based on California laws.
New York on the other hand just makes it illegal to not cover private parts or intimate parts.
*Multiple offenses may change severity and lead to felony.
Because he wants Sylvanas to be equally or more evil than Arthas, we already know this answer.
It no longer lines up with canon.
In the case of the “Dar’khan boinked her corpse” thing, she isn’t so much wrong so much as she’s making an unfalsifiable inference that can’t be proven or disproven.
Which is fine so long as you are clear that it’s an inference that you’re making. It’s not fine when you claim that it’s the only valid interpretation by declaring it canon.
Again. I was not the first person to make this claim. Evelyssa was and Evelyssa is not a Sylvanas fan, so why would thier interpretation paint Sylvanas as a victim if she was not one?
You can chalk my intpretation up as too pro-Sylvanas, that’s fine it doesn’t bother me. But when you disagree with other Arthas fans stating Sylvanas was not a victim, you are the one with the burden of proof.
I deleted my previous post, because Im not trying to white knight for Renautus. They can handle the argument on their own. I will say though, that inconsistency isnt what I was trying to debate, but rather duty to defend a rather logical interpretation, just because the declaration of cannonicity is made.
And if you do, in fact, know the law, then you already know the perpetrator is not charged or convicted on a single crime. They also get charged with sexual assault, along with other relevant charges.
You can Google this if you need to. Find court cases, across multiple states if not every state. I’m not wrong.
And I think you know that already.
There is a difference between being “charged” with something and being convicted with something.
People been making the SA allegory/victim claim since the Arthas book came out 10+ yrs ago. Only know, the weirdos are denying it’s a actual thing.
It’s bizarre