That wasn't a deflect - it was just pointing out that you hadn't managed to get tulpoeid's gender right.
Which becomes kind of funny since you tried to insult me for defending Humon by calling me a "white knight" - a term that has to do with gender whether you understand it or not:
The deflection is all yours now when you suddenly pretend the term you used against me as an insult isn't actually that at all - now when it suddenly hits back at you.
It's total intellectual dishonesty - you'll say or do anything without any respect at all for the intellectual honesty of the argument or for consistency in any way.
I don't actually think you've thought these things through at all - the only thing that's important to you is to get that "win" - even if you end up making completely incoherent arguments that leads you to very strange places - like defending the suppression of freedom of speech.
Here it doesn't go that far - it just makes you look silly for pretending the things you just said means something completely different a second later.
But moving on from that, your main reply now is based on a play which is very common all over the internet today:
First a person makes a statement attacking someone. Then, when they themselves get's attacked for that, they suddenly pretend that they things they originally said doesn't at all mean what they actually said and plays the victim.
You're doing precisely that here.
Now you're pretending I'm over reacting to both things tulpoeid said and now that you yourself said earlier.
In fact I'm doing neither - instead I'm showing that the consequences of what you both say goes much further then either of you understands or cares.
You still fail to understand (or pretend to don't understand to "win" the argument in your own mind - I don't know) the difference between expressing YOUR opinion and prescribing actions for others.
This is not only feedback (which is "I thought this about this") - this is pressure against Humon to suppress her own opinions to suit the taste of others and that's per definition against the idea of freedom of speech.
It doesn't matter one bit that tulpoeid doesn't have the power to actually stop Humon from expressing her opinion - she still thinks she has the right to ask Humon to do it - and you defend her right to do it by pretending she's not actually asking Humon to supress her opinions but mearly offers "feedback".
As if "you shouldn't express you opinion!" is ever just "feedback" and not in it self a completely undemocratic thing to say.
I'm instead defending Humons right to express any opinion she damn well pleases.
You might not see (or doesn't care) that your argument is actually undemocratic, but it still is. Asking anyone to suppress their right to freely express their opinion is per definition just that.
Except of course when you like I do here tell people like you to stop trying to suppress others freedom of speech.
It's never suppressing another persons freedom to tell them to respect democratic rules. Democratic rules doesn't give you or tulpoeid the right to tell others they should give up their rights so you don't have to see their opinions expressed.
Intolerance against intolerance is not a fault but a virtue.
0
@Jonas_Hrafnagil
That wasn't a deflect - it was just pointing out that you hadn't managed to get tulpoeid's gender right.
Which becomes kind of funny since you tried to insult me for defending Humon by calling me a "white knight" - a term that has to do with gender whether you understand it or not:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/white-knight
The deflection is all yours now when you suddenly pretend the term you used against me as an insult isn't actually that at all - now when it suddenly hits back at you.
It's total intellectual dishonesty - you'll say or do anything without any respect at all for the intellectual honesty of the argument or for consistency in any way.
I don't actually think you've thought these things through at all - the only thing that's important to you is to get that "win" - even if you end up making completely incoherent arguments that leads you to very strange places - like defending the suppression of freedom of speech.
Here it doesn't go that far - it just makes you look silly for pretending the things you just said means something completely different a second later.
But moving on from that, your main reply now is based on a play which is very common all over the internet today:
First a person makes a statement attacking someone. Then, when they themselves get's attacked for that, they suddenly pretend that they things they originally said doesn't at all mean what they actually said and plays the victim.
You're doing precisely that here.
Now you're pretending I'm over reacting to both things tulpoeid said and now that you yourself said earlier.
In fact I'm doing neither - instead I'm showing that the consequences of what you both say goes much further then either of you understands or cares.
You still fail to understand (or pretend to don't understand to "win" the argument in your own mind - I don't know) the difference between expressing YOUR opinion and prescribing actions for others.
This is not only feedback (which is "I thought this about this") - this is pressure against Humon to suppress her own opinions to suit the taste of others and that's per definition against the idea of freedom of speech.
It doesn't matter one bit that tulpoeid doesn't have the power to actually stop Humon from expressing her opinion - she still thinks she has the right to ask Humon to do it - and you defend her right to do it by pretending she's not actually asking Humon to supress her opinions but mearly offers "feedback".
As if "you shouldn't express you opinion!" is ever just "feedback" and not in it self a completely undemocratic thing to say.
I'm instead defending Humons right to express any opinion she damn well pleases.
You might not see (or doesn't care) that your argument is actually undemocratic, but it still is. Asking anyone to suppress their right to freely express their opinion is per definition just that.
Except of course when you like I do here tell people like you to stop trying to suppress others freedom of speech.
It's never suppressing another persons freedom to tell them to respect democratic rules. Democratic rules doesn't give you or tulpoeid the right to tell others they should give up their rights so you don't have to see their opinions expressed.
Intolerance against intolerance is not a fault but a virtue.