rpanons | Preserve your precious virginity

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You focused on two words (entire, empirical) which weren't the actual point of my comment. Instead of addressing my actual point (what matters more, the comfort of an entire community, or the 'rights' (in reality, privileges) of a rapist), you regurgitated four paragraphs of didactic, evident tripe.

Whoever you are, please never tag this account, either in memes or in communities or anywhere. I'd rather bathe in fluoroantimonic than RP with people who defend the indefensible: rapists.

Edited 2013-03-07 12:32 (UTC)

You don't have to worry. I've never tagged you and never have any plans to.

Sorry you can't hear beyond the sound of your own yelling when someone says something other than what you want to be told, but the fact that I made a different argument than you wanted to hear doesn't actually make it an invalid response.

In order to make your argument, you require that Ken be unambiguously a rapist. My point is that you have to do some serious acrobatics right out of the realm of rationality in order to make that argument when what is in evidence is a lot of ambiguity. The world isn't as tidy a place as you want to require it to be, but you can just keep on keeping on in your corner of the internet where things are all black and white, and I'll keep on keeping on in mine where not all complications resolve themselves into simple stories of right vs wrong/victims vs perpetrators.

"[...] but the fact that I made a different argument than you wanted to hear doesn't actually make it an invalid response."

A strawman is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I'm glad we agree, citizen.

Edited 2013-03-07 13:16 (UTC)

LMAO

It's good to know that you can quote a definition of a strawman argument while simultaneously completely not understanding what it says or why it doesn't apply in the instance that you want it to!!

Congratulations on the heights of your ignorance!

Congratulations, you defended an admitted rapist. Is his own word not good enough for you? He says in no uncertain terms that he has raped. If you don't believe the actual rapist, who will you believe?

> a lot of ambiguity

where?

when what is in evidence is a lot of ambiguity.

Only if you're a shitty rapist defender.

For every person that isn't a shitty rapist brown-noser, no, no ambiguity left.

Preserve your precious virginity

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

da

no subject

no subject