“I then see this headline and click on it immediately, thinking Annalee has finally had a realization about the harm this site can blindly fester. But nope!”

OMG - I didn’t even look to see who wrote it. Thank you for that - it explains EVERYTHING!

“He’s a man in a position of power with outdated social ideas that will restrict and hinder women in the industry.”

Say the people who have never met him and never worked with him. The women who HAVE worked with him? They say the opposite. In fact, they have been pouring out in his defense.

Arbitrary claim vs fact.…

And until then, you must refrain from any of the benefits of his studies. If you think his misogyny is more important than his work, then you should have the courage of your convictions.

“I’m sure no black person ever will find this offensive”

DHJ keeps comparing women getting offended by a joke to black people getting offended by a joke. Of course this is a straw man (straw woman? ;) ) because no one has claimed they should not be offended. The only thing being said is that being offended is not…

“The problem of games being art, but also products”

“Melodramatic comparisons are exactly that and add drama but no relevancy to this specific situation.”

And here you make your hypocrisy crystal clear. You consider it mere “melodrama” to say HE has the SAME right to HIS body as a woman has to HERS. You simply DISMISS his right. To you, his right has “NO RELEVANCE” here.

“His approach sucked”

A woman DEMANDS a man make an exception to the rules she KNOWS exist (having been informed of them just 40 minutes before hand). She is flatly told No. Instead of accepting this man’s NO, she demands he JUSTIFY -to- her WHY he won’t do business with her. And you want to smear HIM by claiming HIS…

“this did not impact his body at all”

“Just like I don’t want politicians deciding what’s best for my vagina, I don’t want hipster tat artists deciding what’s best for my neck”

Unfortunately you have no problem deciding what’s best for HIS life, HIS body, and HIS effort. So slavery for me but not for thee, eh? Hypocrisy aint pretty. In fact it’s damn…

;)

Also:

.

“Yeah, but if he tries to kill me, for whatever reason, and I have to kill him in defence it’s technically still murder, yet nobody will sue me for it.”

No. This is the fallacy of equivocation (in this case, of treating as same things which are NOT the same). Killing and murder are NOT the same concept. While all…

“it’s still a terrible example. Nobody cares about businesses when it comes to murder”

And WHY don’t they care? Because it is OBVIOUS that is not the reason murder is wrong. That’s what makes it a GREAT example. NO ONE mistakes it for the ACTUAL reason murder is wrong. It is a BLATANT non-sequitor. As such, it…

I’m sorry you fail to comprehend the comparison. Of course, your failure to comprehend the comparison does not invalidate the comparison, let alone make it “ludicrous”.

You are saying A is wrong BECAUSE of X reason. Specifically, you claim:

“Banning drugs” is wrong because “addicts can’t get help”.

I simply provided…

“Except this covers at ion isn’t about violence. Violence=/=creepy vr.”

“What I meant was that banning things makes it worse!”

You missed my point - which is that you missed the point of -why- banning is wrong. Saying banning is wrong because of things like addicts not getting the help they need is the same as saying murder is wrong because businesses then don’t get the workers they need.

Th…

“you’re defending policies that discriminate based purely on worker discretion”

Yes. Your point?

“I see a lot of people here defending Dan’s right to determine his work who I doubt would agree much if wedding cake bakers claimed the same thing to LGBT couples.”

You are right to point out their hypocrisy. Just goes to show they don’t actually practice their principle with any consistency. They are simply “picking…

“NO WHITE POWER TATTOOS”

But that’s discrimination against a person’s CREED! You aren’t allowed to be against a person’s creed. ;)