I don’t believe that’s your reason for posting bringing it up. In fact, I cannot see your explanation as making sense. Just because you say a thing doesn’t make it plausible. THere is not a reasonable way to read what you’re saying now into what you wrote.

So is this one, where you say that pointing out the loss of appetite is not a thing to fault in his statement:

Actually, the nefarious implication is not this random other quote you pulled of yourself, but rather the one to which I specifically referred, where you said:

Except the points he raised weren’t very important. He wasn’t arguign that rapists are “human”, he literally argued that saying “Brock is upset by the consequences of his actions, therefore he shouldn’t have them” is a legitimate argument to make. He has used trivial truths (“Rapists aren’t 2-dimensional monsters,…

Well, first of all: If I saw these sorts of things in terms of win and lose, I’d have “won” this about 40 comments ago, when he first said something that was transparently false and I called him on it.

What’s interesting is you calling “pointing out I’ve already answered your question” with “shrugging it off”.

I do not blame her for going to the college, I understand. But we in general need to end this “go to the school to let them investigate crime” bullshit.

I already did. You, on the other hand, never actually supported yourself whatsoever except by claiming your “education” which, you admitted, was not in actual law, taught you...stuff, apparently. That lets you say things about the legal system, except you don’t have training in the legal system, and you don’t read…

Wait, OUR congress got something easy but important done and weren’t dickbags about it? I don’t even!

I know basically nothing about that place except I’ve heard of it.

Allowed, or required? It is Texas. ..

Well, at least it won’t be Schlafley this time.

Heh. Solomon.

So the “best I’m going to get” is you pretending that you “might” have said a word that changes the meaning from what you did say significantly, and that is your readers fault the words you did say mean what they do? Moreover, you do recognize that your original point is now incoherent, right? Because you were arguing…

We don’t need to unravel the very foundations of language itself, despite your pretentious and wounded tone, we just need to see that you’re unwilling to admit fault and willing to desperately cast aspersions in hopes of distracting from that. It’s sad when you desperately attack others rather than admit fault, or…

While I can, and often am, incredibly pedantic, that’s not what’s happening here. The idea you actually believe it is strains credulity.

There’s a particular irony to the hypocrisy of you now than bandying about claims of dishonesty, when you became so upset that people were doing it to you. I did not in this post, but you saying I said things I didn’t day is not new. What I did was explain how it could be seen as dishonest, which is DIFFERENT, because…

What ethicists say the legal system should be is not what it is. What some say the intention of it should be, is not necessarily what the intention is.

I think you’re defending his statement because you are defending his statement: “My point is simply that while there are a great many things wrong with Brock’s father’s statement, pointing out a loss of appetite isn’t one of them.”

He didn’t make a medical argument. YOU inserted that on the grounds it was somewhat implied. But you can’t stretch that add far as you have here. Your position is not reasonable.