Erfworld 78, Page 72

[fendrin]

Do you see how you have to qualify and couch your argument, though? 'Show me how she's cruel...um... outside of the scene where she tortures someone.' 'Show me how she's abusive... um... aside from the torture.' 'Show me how she's manipulative... um... in a way that does not benefit someone else.'

My response? No, I don't need to to defend my statements with those caveats, just as I would not need to respond to the statement. 'You say E=MC squared, Miss Einstein. But show me how this is true without invoking the laws of physics.' Putting such caveats on the required proof, to me, shows the essential weakness of your argument, that it cannot stand without the caveats. "Show me that Wanda is cruel without referencing her cruelty?" Sorry, I don't care to play into that rhetorical trap.

I can see how it might look like that is what I was doing, but no. That's not the point of the caveats.

It's because we don't know whether it was torture or extremely rough intimacy. I've made the argument before here, and Arkenputtyknife made a few more excellent points here

I just didn't feel like repeating myself. My post was excessively long already.