So in essence you are calling me a liar.
I don't know your motivations. Whether you're lying depends on whether the false information is stated while you know it's false. I'd estimate that's not your angle in this particular case and that you believe what you're saying, but I can't know it for sure.
A false belief is still false however.
Are you talking about Mary or me?
Mary in context of "there is no such thing as misandry".
This reads as "please give us guidelines in how best to bully/troll you."
Not gonna go there.
Quoted is both ad hominem and painting false intentions...something your signature asks people not do to you.
You're not going to go there because you're not capable of defining bullying even on your own terms in a way that would actually allow posts in those threads to be uniquely identified as bullying. I have not bullied anybody, nor do I wish to do so.
Fortunately, I don't care how you perceive my "argumentative position." Just read the threads and take note of the times when people other than Mary or me have disapproved of them.
I argued with other people in those threads, too. Were they all also bullied? Is pointing out someone's statement is inaccurate or that they're saying something unethical bullying? By your own standards you have bullied a large number of people in this thread, because you've established no standards. Since that's not a useful conclusion, there needs to be standards for the assertion to even be meaningful.
In contrast to the previous point, I *will* assert that a refusal to demonstrate these standards while insisting something occurred is dishonest.
Of course you didn't.
I'm operating from evidence. Can you?
The ONLY person you have ANY say about in terms of whether they are being bullied is YOU. You have absolutely zero grounds to make any claim about me or anyone else "bullying large numbers of people." Get over yourself.
You jumped in on my discussion with Valka.
She asserts Mary was bullied and that other people agree with her. That is a significant part of her justification of the false claim. I chose the analogy I did to reflect that.
You laugh at me, but it's Valka's position you're refuting.
You can either explore what it is that has them respond so strongly, which is undoubtedly something in their experience that you may very well not know about, or you can write them off as someone you can't be bothered with
I chose "write them off", until someone other than the person in question started making false claims that per your reasoning there was no justification for making. My engagement in this discussion has been in that context. Mary made her choice, and if she really felt that way despite there being no discernible basis for it that choice was reasonable.
The definition of bully refers to their behavior, not how its received. I saw bullies in grade school insulting and laughing at people, I didn't need the victims to confirm it.
If we accept this, then there should be standards after all. In fact, for this to be true there *must* be standards that allow one to determine bullying vs not. Why are those insisting 3rd party bullying occurred also insisting on avoiding those standards?
Can I just comment that the entire point of the game thread was degrading?
The premise was questionable, but got derailed less than a quarter of the way into it.
... that doesn't follow.
