Quoting people out of context is also rude.
Only when the context makes a difference. See below...
Examples A and B, I know, were both in repsonse to "it's justified when we do it because x group does it",
No, you don't know that -- you are inventing a post facto narrative derived from what you conceive it would take to justify your earlier behavior, rather than from any actual memory of what was being said at the time. They weren't in response to that, and by claiming they were you are adding new libelous accusations to your earlier ones.
a rhetorical ploy I have never found convincing for the exact reason I was pointing out. We are neither terrorists nor chimpanzees, so their conduct cannot be used as a standard for evaluating our own behavior. If Emily or anyone else is upset that I have taken their "we" statements and turned them into "I/you" statements, that's a sign of illogic in and of itself. You are human and so am I. If you say that you believe "humans are inherently violent, like chimpanzees" then you are either saying "I am inherently violent, like a chimpanzee" or "I am not a human". You are also saying to the person you're talking to "I think you are inherently violent, like chimpanzees". Or, more likely, you simply haven't thought about the implications of your argument at all.
In the first place, Emily had said nothing of the sort. You are libeling her, and it isn't even the same libel you were libeling her with at the time. You just make things up about her.
And in the second place, it seems you've forgotten the topic we're now discussing. This is not a "Politesse is bad for saying those mean things he said" trial, so you now attempting to justify yourself completely misses the point. What you are now on trial for is
falsely accusing Emily of not practicing what she preaches, remember? So even if the context I quoted you out of were exactly what you claim it was,
that would not be a defense! In order to justify your accusation, you would need to show the context I quoted you out of was that the personal insults I quoted
were reciprocal rudeness. You would need to show you were
retaliating against previous personal insults by the targets of your invective. That is why the context I quoted you out of makes no difference -- there is no dispute over the pertinent fact, which is that
you do not practice bad manners only reciprocally. You've
stipulated it! If you really said those things for the reason you say you did, that satisfies Emily's preached criterion of "have a repeated pattern of being complete assholes in their interaction with those who don't kowtow to their belief structures." So whether that behavior on your part is justifiable by the egregiousness with which your targets believed things they oughtn't believe is neither here nor there -- it has no bearing on whether Emily is practicing what she preaches. This is not rocket science.
I note that in the terrorist example, though of course you offered no context, if I am remembering correctly Emily was <snip>
You obviously aren't remembering correctly. You are yet again just making things up about her.
