Something Amyss said:
runic knight said:
No, was directed at you, since you were the one who seemed like they were being dismissive of others under the claim that people have a hard time understanding there are other people out there
Which, again, had little to do with what you actually said.
Except the part of my post you cut out of the reply where I explained exactly how it related to what I said previously. So, you know, there is that. Still sitting there too if you'd like to address it you know. I'll recap further down, just to be sure it is more clear this time around in how it applies to your comment.
Though if you're going to insist on it, I do find it more than a little weird that a woman pimped out as a slave in trophy attire while a fat slug makes lewd gestures at her is somehow on part with Disney Princesses who are in no way treated sexually. Like, so weird I can't take the arguments seriously. Mars is the one who specifically addressed the toys in the manner that seems to have your dander up, though, and I won't be repeating myself on this point. If you have anything to say to me, or maybe to address things I said rather than ones you ascribed to me, by all means.
I tried, you dodged my attempts and continue to do so. Even when pressed to clarify, you would rather complain about me than actually put yourself out there and clarify your stance. Still, I'll try again.
What is the purpose of extrapolating the "people don't understand it shares a shelf with children" into a larger statement of "people don't understand other people are out there"? What possible point or benefit does that have? What does it add to the discussion beside being a rather mean-spirited jab and dismissal of other people?
Lets stick with that part for now and see if you are willing to actually defend or explain the statement you made or if you will try to deflect. I'll worry about the dismissal by Mars through use of missing the point being raised when comparing a sexy outfit in a movie where the fat slug monster is rather brutally chokes to death and thus likely not quite meant for kids without parental supervision in the first place to not just other sexy outfits worn by other disney characters, but also the various violent weapons and such within the franchise and company to showcase a very selective application of "protect the children" if they wish to argue it with me. However that argument itself isn't required to address your statement as flawed.
My point raised was that your implied association of people calling the ban of the outfit with "people who don't understand other people are out there", and that is the point I would like you to actually clarify and address. The arguments showing the lack of consistency is merely example that those people do, in fact, understand other people exist, and likely do so better than the disney employee themselves as unlike the disney employee, they don't limit the idea of "save the children" from a single 30 year old costume and instead ask about the myriad of other possible things children must be saved from, from other outfits to violent behavior, to mature themes and etc.
Thus your implied statement, which you for some reason have yet to clarify or defend, that the people complaining about the ban are people who "don't understand that other people are out there" is demonstrably untrue. So what was the purpose of it here?
thought I'd snuck that in quick enough, realised I should probably register my bafflement at the traction this story is getting around the net.
