Why aren't we having a National conversation about Leftist violence?

[Shastafarian]

Sorry but I don't spend my weekends posting on Spurstalk.

I find that hard to believe

Stop dodging my question. Can a sexual assault occur even if both participants are willing yes or no?

I'm not dodging your question. The answer is obvious. The meaning behind the question is the important part. But keep on defending child molesters. We know your MO.

[Blizzardwizard]

Stop dodging my question.

Hypocrisy at its finest

[spurraider21]

Hypocrisy at its finest

well then from now on if you accuse him of dodging a question it would be hypocrisy, too

[TheSanityAnnex]

I find that hard to believe

I'm not dodging your question. The answer is obvious. The meaning behind the question is the important part. But keep on defending child molesters. We know your MO.

What's the answer, you've dodged it again. Can a sexual assault occur even if both participants are willing yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

What's the answer, you've dodged it again. Can a sexual assault occur even if both participants are willing yes or no?

if one is underage, it's STATUTORY rape, doesn't matter if both consent. If one is a coach and the other a student, it's crime.

You're defense of the pedophile is as bull ty as your sicko gun fellatin.

[Shastafarian]

What's the answer, you've dodged it again. Can a sexual assault occur even if both participants are willing yes or no?

It's not an answer. It's the definition of the term. Even if I "dodge questions" I still don't defend child molesters like you do. So I'm fine with that.

[Shastafarian]

What's the definition of a commonly known term?

You ing serious dude?

Stop dodging my thought-provoking question!

[Winehole23]

"Legit ad homenim" means that it's actually a fallacy, not just an insult that gets called one by psuedo-intellectuals. Shas is legitimately trying to argue that TSA's character discredits his argument, and it's completely absurd, because TSA's potential support pedophiles has nothing to do with the fact that Trump protesters may be more violent than they're believed to be.

This is an example of a fallacious argument, and people should take notes so they don't keep mixing it up. No amount of "evidence" to support the pedophile angle makes the argument more legitimate. In fact, I'm pretty sure the constructive in this thread isn't even being disputed anymore.

I never said the ad hominem replaces a topical argument, just that it seems to be accurate. Pedo-defenders weeping crocodile tears over street violence at Trump rallies are less persuasive than speakers not similarly biased.

[Winehole23]

rhetorically, of course

[Winehole23]

pointing that out isn't a rhetorical fallacy.

defending child molesters unbidden doesn't win people to your side.

[Winehole23]

TSA seems to be confused on the age of consent issue.

legally, it's clear cut within jurisdictions.

for a lot people it's cut and dried morally too.

[Winehole23]

TSA and CC seem to be a moral relativists on age of consent.

If the minor consents it becomes consensual, or something like that.

[Chinook]

pointing that out isn't a rhetorical fallacy.

Yes it is. That's the point. An argument is either good or bad, and it's independent of the person who's making it. That's why they call it ad homenim.

[Winehole23]

not Romeo and Juliet, but the high school coach tackling his own wrestlers.

ok presumably because teenagers enjoy getting blown, or did not forcefully resist, or something like that.

[Winehole23]

Yes it is. That's the point. An argument is either good or bad, and it's independent of the person who's making it. That's why they call it ad homenim.

I think you missed my point. The conversation operates on many tracks. The logical track claims supremacy, yet cannot enforce it on bulletin boards.

Taboo, supers ion and the law related to sexual contact with children count too.

[Winehole23]

the question of who is speaking may not be relevant logically speaking, but rhetorically and socially the answer is pertinent.

one would be an idiot to ignore who's arguing for what.

[Winehole23]

yet that is precisely what logic demands

[Winehole23]

and bulletin boards will not abide

[Winehole23]

good luck with the orderly debate

[Winehole23]

is that really what you came here for?

[spurraider21]

you realize that you can just edit the first post instead of adding 6 more right?

[Winehole23]

yep

[Winehole23]

you bored?

[Winehole23]

I used to write paragraphs. They begged me to stop.

[Winehole23]

I did