Ok, I'm only going to do this once, because quite frankly, I don't think you'll read this as this is quite above your literacy capabilities. Nevertheless, I'm about to hold your hand and introduce you into the big boy world, where structure and evidence is celebrated, and non sequiturs and ad hominem are frowned upon. I know! The only two tools you have taken away.
Key Terms:
--
CONTENTION 1: Ethang5's attempt at humour is not actually humour
Using the three terms provided above, it is clear that Ethang5's statement falls into the category of defamation and accusation. To break down Ethang5's statement, consider the following analysis.
p1. BONES thinks that IF the 11 year old boy wanted sex THEN it isn't rape.
p2. The 11 year old boy wanted sex.
c1. It isn't rape.
In a model form
p1. X thinks that if Y wanted Z then it isn't A.
p2. Y wanted Z
c1. It isn't A.
However, there is one major problem with the syllogism. Notice how Ethang5 has snuck a hidden contention, of which he assumes is axiomatic. The following is the honest syllogism;
p1. IF X thinks that if Y wanted Z then it isn't A.
p2. X thinks that if Y wanted Z then it isn't A.
p3. Y wanted Z
c1. It isn't A.
As aforementioned, Ethang5 does not provide any good reasons to believe that I thought such a thing, but they do provide a seemingly damaging statement made by myself.
REBUTTAL 1: Bones' alleged "misconduct"
Before I even begin rebutting the poor attempt at a "gotcha" moment, I must make clear that Ethang5 has committed a Tu quoque fallacy. The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the following template.
p1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
p2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
c1. Therefore, X is false.
In this situation,
p1. Bones claims that Ethang5 has made a pedophillic statment
p2. Ethang5 asserts that Bones past action are inconsistent with the truth claim of pedophillic statements.
c1. Therefore Ethang5 did not make a pedophillic statement.
It must be noted that even if I did make a pedophillic statement, the truth claim that Ethang5 did the same still holds. Regardless of my past, the syllogism I provide will still hold. Embarrassingly however, I am not a pedo like Ethang5. The alleged "misconduct" is branded as a result of the following conversation.
Bones: tell me exactly where I say that 11 year old boys wish to get raped by their priests.
Ethang5 quoting Bones: Begging is what the choir boys did the priest.
Ethan5 commentary: If you meant something different, say so. But after saying you had my mother begging, calling me a "pussy", and claiming I masturbated at my prom, the choir boy comment seems within your scope.
As any sensible person can see, this is a terrible misunderstanding of which can be completely attributed to the result of Ethang5's elementary understanding in conversation.
My statement "begging is what the choir boys did to the priest" can be interpreted in two ways (actually, it can only be logically interpreted in one way, but Ethang5 is not a logical being).
- The choir boys were begging to be raped.
- The choir boys were begging not to be raped.
The first analysis of which Ethang5 has opted for can be rendered as illogical purely on the basis of tautology. By virtue of what is true via definition, it is impossible to want to get raped, as being raped by definition happens non consensually.
Therefore, this leaves us with the second interpretation, that is the children did not want to be raped. Not only does this sentence roll of the tongue far better, it is also far more consistent with my persona on this website as an anti-theist. Moreover, it is also consistent with
reality. Consider the following excerpt from the
Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.
7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the school, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident... described being raped by three Brothers: "I was brought to the infirmary... they held me over the bed, they were animals... they penetrated me, I was bleeding". Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two brothers in the toilets off the dormitory: "One Brother kept watch while the other abused me sexually, then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priests in Confession, he called me a liar".
Miscellaneous
You got carried away trying to find an insult that riled me. So you first attacked my mother, then how I was raised, then my father, and finally, charged masturbation. I did not follow suit.
We must remember how this encounter started. I first directed you to a forum which I posted, to which you replied
And if you aren't embarrassed to offer such stupidity as evidence, nothing I can say will help you.
I then simply replied, with no hint of aggression or desire to insult
Do you want to debate or are you just going to talk your talk?
To which you replied
If you really think Jesus was telling His followers to mutilate themselves you aren't intelligent enough to be worth talking to.
I do not debate flat earthers, or Jehovah witnesses, or people who think Genesis 1 and 2 are different creation stories. I do not debate people who take the most ludicrous childish interpretations of the Bible. There is no need to debate them as they are either being dishonest or are too stupid to be worth the effort.
Notice how you are the one who initiated the aggression. Notice how I offered to settle this diplomatically in a debate. Notice how you ran and dodged.
Till then I will be here to burn you for as long as it takes for you to realize you're being a fool.
I mean I'm not the coward dodging a debate...
Go cry to them some more.
I mean I'm not the coward dodging a debate...
