Uh, okay, but, how do you just disagree with an idea then?

The idea being

> it's stylistically incorrect to choose a more ambiguous pronoun

And my disagreement being with the assessment that it is "incorrect". It's not. That's an arbitrary choice and pointing to "authorities" there changes nothing about the arbitrary-ness.

__

In fact, I went all in on good faith there by validating that idea as one coherent way to see this topic.

I just fundamentally disagree with it and brought forward my equally valid and coherent way to see this topic.

Which got countered with a "this is just a strawman" (which is false, as that is not how strawmans work) followed by a direct attack

> but you just happened to hop on the wrong case to make your stand, didn't realize that we're talking about an explicit "mr"?

And now you show up and.. uh.

__

Yeah anyway. The direct attack there alone is enough to lose any moral highground. So even if I had been doing what I was accused of (which I clearly did not), that would be a less worse offense?

Idk.