I don’t know. What does it say in those comments? I sure as fuck didn’t say anything else, until someone came along and tried to correct me with extreme outliers.
So you tell me, I have no idea what the argument is about myself, I have asked previously to have that determined, but got called names instead so I’m not sure what’s up or down here.
If you were trying to say that women in an armor were extremely uncommon, then comments about some of them existing should just reinforce your claim, they were so rare that you could probably list them all.
If you were arguing in absolutes instead, saying that at no point in history a woman has ever worn an armor, then bringing outliers to the discussion is a legitimate correction, since even a single one existing breaks the absolute.
In both of those cases, you asking for a second woman in armor or ten thousand male knights are non-sequiturs, because them existing or not doesn’t change anything in the previous statements. So one has to guess your point is neither of those, but a third one instead, which I really didn’t understand.
If I have to guess, the “argument” about you is that no one really understood the point of your comments, so they’re arguing with you about what they think you mean. Which is wrong, of course, but you should clarify that if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Making sarcastic comments doesn’t help clear up things.
I really don’t understand the point of this whole argument.
You wanted to point out how a woman in a knight’s armor is, historically, statistically improbable. Ok.
What did the other comments want to achieve? No one, at any point, argued that female knights were a common occurrence.
I don’t know. What does it say in those comments? I sure as fuck didn’t say anything else, until someone came along and tried to correct me with extreme outliers.
So you tell me, I have no idea what the argument is about myself, I have asked previously to have that determined, but got called names instead so I’m not sure what’s up or down here.
Then I don’t understand what your point is.
If you were trying to say that women in an armor were extremely uncommon, then comments about some of them existing should just reinforce your claim, they were so rare that you could probably list them all.
If you were arguing in absolutes instead, saying that at no point in history a woman has ever worn an armor, then bringing outliers to the discussion is a legitimate correction, since even a single one existing breaks the absolute.
In both of those cases, you asking for a second woman in armor or ten thousand male knights are non-sequiturs, because them existing or not doesn’t change anything in the previous statements. So one has to guess your point is neither of those, but a third one instead, which I really didn’t understand.
If I have to guess, the “argument” about you is that no one really understood the point of your comments, so they’re arguing with you about what they think you mean. Which is wrong, of course, but you should clarify that if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Making sarcastic comments doesn’t help clear up things.
Five people upvoted you without reading what you said. That’s my problem.
>Complains about people not answering his questions and belittling him
>Proceeds to not answer questions and belittle others
I mean, I tried to put good will in it but it seems it was pointless.