No, in this case the point of the question, clearly, was the possibility of self-dehumanization. Your opinions of his actual humanity was a different point, and not the one I was addressing
The gratuitous insinuation illustrated thus:
The insinuations, in order:
1. I edited your statement for scurrilous reasons.
2. I don't give others the respect they're due about their opinions.
3. I don't properly acknowledge the humanity of others.
4. Only my own concepts are relevant.
When in fact, none of that attended to the point at hand, which was whether you acknowledge the possibility that the inhuman acts of the perpetrator themselves contribute to his dehumanization.
From the
Randomseed Rules:
I think the only thing more lamentable than a Moderator employing the "shift the point" tactic with gratuitous insinuation, is then justifying such acts by saying "if you don't want to talk to me, don't answer my posts". You are supposed to be maintaining high standards, I thought.