That's My Atypical Girl - Vol. 1 Ch. 6

[ayatome]

@emMeBi86 it wouldn't end well even if he asked that. Tripping the child then hitting the mother afterwards would still make her the bad one, no matter how bratty the kid was. The acceptable action (by Japanese society's standard) in that situation was to gently scold the kid or ask the mother to control the child nicely. By harming the child and the mother, she is seen as the bad guy by everyone else.

Thanks for the translation!

 

[luckpack]

@ghostkun Yup, that's exactly what I though. "He sounds like psychologist!"

 

[Xxjuggernaut]

@ac1d1c She enjoys his non-erotic work. And yes

 

[amillionthrow]

Kid deserved it.

Spoiler

Should've went out Ted Beneke style.

 

[Hootanic]

People need to remember that with Asperger's, interpreting "unwritten" rules of social behavior is extremely difficult. Whether its the "code of the playground" as kids, in a bath house or what have you, the issue is that they are unable to pick up on social cues that other people exhibit. She simply reacted. She was hit, she hit back - she was confronted, she confronted back. Knowing to do nothing to the child, then politely bringing the matter to the mother's intention would have required prior knowledge of how to respond in this specific instance. Based on previous plot points, her experience in this situation is minimal so the reaction is the natural outcome.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Hootanic—

While Asperger's syndrome indeed makes it difficult to learn norms conveyed only by non-verbal queues, the rules relevant to this story are in fact verbally conveyed in Japanese society (and in other societies), and (according to her own remarks) the girl knew that she was violating them but in the event was dissociated from concern for those rules.

She plainly has problems beyond Asperger's syndrome. Indeed, it's not perfectly clear that she has an autistic-spectrum disorder, as opposed to a different condition (brought on by an abusive childhood) that mimics some of the symptoms of ASD while also bringing with it depression and a propensity to engage in self-harm.

 

[laiseran]

Inb4 the other girl turns up

 

[undercurses]

it's not the brats fault, but the parents. because he acts like that. even the mother is an ass, she should just asking first beforehand why she injured the kids, not getting angry(yeah if our kids or siblings are injured by others we should be angry, but we should know the reason why they're doing that). or if she's clearly saw her kids annoys other and get what he deserved, she should apologize first then sue her because it's causing injury to her kid, this is why "most" women are stupid and driven by instinct isn't it ?


hahahahaha get triggered by my comment pls
I like causing chaos

 

[Glomoro]

I just recalled some random internet story where someone was in a store, some "I don't even fucking care anymore" mom's shitheel of a kid is running amok, and they bite the person who wrote the story for whatever reason, breaking the skin even. So the person has a flash of inspiration and starts acting like they're really concerned about the kid. Drops the bomb by lying and saying they have HIV. Mom and bystanders are all super uncomfortable and concerned now, the kid sees all this and despite not knowing what that is starts bawling because something obviously wrong. You know, one of those stories where half the replies to it were probably "Sure you did" or such, but it was a satisfying story either way. If true, I'd imagine the kid stopped biting strangers.

 

[definitionofinsanity]

@Oeconomist

The child was just a child; moral responsibility rests with the negligent parent, and any sanction — whether it be rebuke, violence, expulsion, or some combination of these — should be imposed on the parent. It was simply wrong to trip the child.

While morally correct...
...Do you think that little shitstain is going to go running through a bathhouse hitting people anytime soon?
Besides which, I've seen multiple times where someone has tried to get the parent to, y'know, parent and control their kids that were acting inappropriately only for the parents to get indignant and question what business it is of someone else to tell them what to do with their children. Which immediately gives you the insight as to why the little shit is running around amok as they like in the first place.

 

[Oeconomist]

@definitionofinsanity—

While morally correct...

You're trying to have your moral cake and eat it too. .

..Do you think that little shitstain

Again: That character is a child, and the moral opprobrium that attaches to acts by children is different from that which attaches to otherwise identical act by adults.

is going to go running through a bathhouse hitting people anytime soon?

I don't think that his behavior would be the same were he to have had a joint dislocated or an eye gouged from its socket, and I don't think that it would be the same after his being tripped. Whether it would be better or still worse, on the other hand, would be a matter of conjecture.

I've seen multiple times where someone has tried to get the parent to, y'know, parent and control their kids that were acting inappropriately only for the parents to get indignant and question what business it is of someone else to tell them what to do with their children.

So have I. And I've seen children decide that their license is even greater after seeing how their parents and other adults react to attempts by one party either in interaction with the parents or directly with the child. The practical issues are complex, especially as the whole of society doesn't take a reasonable view.

 

[definitionofinsanity]

@Oeconomist

You're trying to have your moral cake and eat it too. .

No, I don't actually support your argument and am not playing the morality card.

Again: That character is a child, and the moral opprobrium that attaches to acts by children is different from that which attaches to otherwise identical act by adults.

...Which is obviously why the state can't charge under age children as adu- Oh, wait...

I don't think that his behavior would be the same were he to have had a joint dislocated or an eye gouged from its socket

Irrelevant and an attempt at a straw man argument. Gouging an eye is not on the same level as tripping.

and I don't think that it would be the same after his being tripped. Whether it would be better or still worse, on the other hand, would be a matter of conjecture.

And whether it's better or worse is subject to your own personal morality standards, whatever they may be, and thus this is a bit of a pointless argument to be having.

So have I. And I've seen children decide that their license is even greater after seeing how their parents and other adults react to attempts by one party either in interaction with the parents or directly with the child.

That was precisely my point. The difference being between reaction or interaction in this case is that there is a direct personal consequence to the child that isn't dependent on the parent's actions. A stranger chiding a child can be easily brushed off as "you're not my mom/dad" and a stranger trying to get a parent to do some parenting can also be easily brushed aside. So unless you witnessed something like a stranger walk up and slap a child that was misbehaving... I don't see it as relevant to this.

 

[Oeconomist]

@definitionofinsanity—

I don't actually support your argument and am not playing the morality card.

You began by stipulating that I were “morally correct” only to disagree with it implicitly. Explicitly now acknowledging that you disagree does not resolve the contradiction. And you will be further entangled in contradiction if you attempt to argue that somehow a course of action can be right or wrong without morality.

...Which is obviously why the state can't charge under age children as adu- Oh, wait...

Now you are confusing morality with legislation, which would be bad enough by itself, but in this case entangles you in a new contradiction, as the actions of the female protagonist were in violation of law.

Irrelevant and an attempt at a straw man argument. Gouging an eye is not on the same level as tripping.

It's neither irrelevant nor an attempt to misrepresent your argument. The way that one tests any principle is by looking at its implications to different circumstances. You can try to retrofit levels as such of some sort into your principle, but of course that will look about as ad hoc and arbitrary as it is. (Someone else, having argued for some corporal punishment less than tripping could likewise argue that tripping were on another level.)

And whether it's better or worse is subject to your own personal morality standards, whatever they may be, and thus this is a bit of a pointless argument to be having.

You're trying to argue that my behavior here is wrong even as you claim that the rightness or wrongness of behavior is simply a matter of person longings. Relativists should not berate us with what they are logically required to imagine are only their own personal longings.

That was precisely my point. The difference being between reaction or interaction in this case is that there is a direct personal consequence to the child that isn't dependent on the parent's actions.

Nope. Regardless of whether a child's behavior is right or wrong, what a child learns in the wake of an assault in response to that behavior is determined not merely by the immediate experience of the assault but also by what consequently follows afterwards. You're working hard not to see how the real world works.

 

[spidersonbikes]

I knew I'd see a bunch of people here defending her tripping the kid. Yikes.
Her hitting the mother is one thing since she grabbed her hair but a kid running like that doesn't deserve to be tripped.

Yes I understand her likely untreated (or lack of learning healthy coping) Asperger's and other trauma but that's just an explanation, not an excuse.

 

[definitionofinsanity]

@Oeconomist

You began by stipulating that I were “morally correct” only to disagree with it implicitly.

I began by stating your own words back to you. For the life of me I can't understand how the hell you took that as me agreeing with you when even you recognize that in the context of it there was no way that's what I was doing and I was countering your argument from the get go and wasn't even making it about morality. I think any reasonable person would have realized that I was saying while you think that's morally correct that doesn't necessarily make for an effective solution or argument in the real world.

Explicitly now acknowledging that you disagree does not resolve the contradiction.

There was no contradiction to start with. You (mis)read into what I said and just attributed what you wanted to me instead of what I actually said. I can not and will not be held accountable for shit I never said, especially after informing you that you were mistaken and you still want to harp on and make this non-issue into a issue. It's not happening.

And you will be further entangled in contradiction if you attempt to argue that somehow a course of action can be right or wrong without morality.

I thought I made it relatively clear that I didn't two flying shits about the morality. And, equally, is my desire to play the "what if/what about" game.

Now you are confusing morality with legislation

This, strangely enough, legitimately pissed me off when I first read it because I know that you know better. Laws are influenced by the culture, and thus the moral virtues of that culture, in that nation's laws. And, in the case you actually believe this (in which case, shame on you), I offer you a bet to settle the argument: I'll pay to fly the two of us to Tehran and you'll walk around with a sign having particularly spicy/edgy things written on it in Persian about homosexual relations and one known as Allah and we'll see if morality and legislation are two completely separate, mutually exclusive things or not when the "nice" men with truncheons start walking over to question you. I'm sure they'll be convinced that morality laws aren't an actual thing by your passionate argument and will let you go, thus winning you the bet. Surely. Now let's put a lid on this silly argument.

but in this case entangles you in a new contradiction, as the actions of the female protagonist were in violation of law.

Ah, but it will only be yourself that is found entangled in the slippery tentacle of contradiction today.
You're a manga fan and thus must have accumulated some of Japanese cultural facts over your time of reading them. Tell me... do you remember what the legal age of adults is in Japan? It's 20.

...Now I'm sure you're already realizing where this is going, but what is the age of Saitou in the manga? Oh, it's given. It's 18.
Which means, in the eyes of the Japanese legal system, she is still a minor. Which really puts a fucking dampener on your argument regarding children and the law. Because you were insinuating

Spoiler

Yes, you were: "That character is a child, and the moral opprobrium that attaches to acts by children is different from that which attaches to otherwise identical act by adults."

she was subject to a higher legal or moral standard. She isn't. From a legal standpoint, Saitou and the kid she tripped - who unless that is a youthful midget is actually of legal age - are the same legal category because they are both minors. In fact, the only legal adult involved in the situation was the child's presumed mother.

It's neither irrelevant nor an attempt to misrepresent your argument.

Given how many times you have misconstrued, straw manned or misunderstood what I've actually said in just this short amount of time, I'm going to reserve my right to doubt that.

The way that one tests any principle is by looking at its implications to different circumstances.

Okay, I'm noticing a pattern of behavior here so I'll deal with this now: TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS what my principle is. Relay it back to me in a summarized fashion. Because, I don't recall mentioning or implying or describing a principle to you. So when you're testing my principle... that I never gave you... I see a huge fucking red flag there. Because I don't remember giving you one or outlining it, so I don't know what you could POSSIBLY be addressing. And if you've misconstrued me already and are judging my principles that I myself and not even aware of... we have a problem.

You're trying to argue that my behavior here is wrong even as you claim that the rightness or wrongness of behavior is simply a matter of person longings.

Excuse... what the actual fuck? Um, where are you getting this idea? I thought I was relatively clear, from the start, that I was not talking about morality. I thought I was relatively clear, from the start, that I was criticizing your argument as being an answer to a question that might not necessarily need be answered. I don't recall ever telling you that your "behavior" (...the hell?) was "wrong." Or talking about "rightness" or "wrongness."

What about "And whether it's better or worse is subject to your own personal morality standards, whatever they may be, and thus this is a bit of a pointless argument to be having." screams to you "YES, I THINK YOUR BEHAVIOR IS WRONG AND TOTALLY WANT TO DEBATE THE MORALITY OF THIS SUBJECT"? In what fucked-up Berenstain bizarro-land alternate dimension that you must hail from that I'm now somehow connected to now did you take away this from anything I said? Because, to my mind, this is like saying "2 + J = Banana" and being confident that somehow makes sense. Because what you're accusing me of makes so little sense I'm wondering if I'm having a stroke or something.

Nope. Regardless of whether a child's behavior is right or wrong, what a child learns in the wake of an assault in response to that behavior is determined not merely by the immediate experience of the assault but also by what consequently follows afterwards.

Conjecture, and not relevant.

 

[Oeconomist]

@definitionofinsanity—

I began by stating your own words back to you.

Nope. Those weren't my words, and anyone can review my remarks and yours now. There's no point in your attempting a falsification of the sort that sometimes works with out a record but fails when the discourse is text. For the life of you or not, what you were doing was trying to treat morality and right-or-wrong as independent things; and you continued that attempt into your next comment; and, when you write

I was countering your argument from the get go and wasn't even making it about morality.

You're still trying to have the cake of morality (right-or-wrong) while eating it too.

There was no contradiction to start with.

There was and remains that contradiction.

it will only be yourself that is found entangled in the slippery tentacle of contradiction today.

No, because, while you argued on the presumption that law is an embodiment of morality, I did no such thing. In fact, I began my reponse to your presumption by saying that “confusing morality with legislation” … “would be bad enough by itself”.

how many times you have misconstrued, straw manned or misunderstood what I've actually said

The misunderstanding here is strictly yours, and it's mostly a matter of your not seeing the logical implications of your own words.

TELL ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS what my principle is.

Easy enough. You asked a rhetorical question:

Do you think that little shitstain is going to go running through a bathhouse hitting people anytime soon?

This question was presented as somehow a counter-argument to what I'd written, with nothing to that argument as such. (Your further remarks indeed begin with “Besides which”.) My response to your question was a simple statement of truth: that the child's behavior would be changed somehow by a variety of corporal punishments. The reason that you found this statement of truth unpleasant was that it got at the principle of argumentation that you were trying to employ, and at the principle of right-and-wrong (morality) that you were trying to advance. Your principle of argumentation was that a desirable attribute of an outcome were sufficient to justify action that led to that outcome; your principle of right-and-wrong was that tripping a child under the circumstance such as those in this story could be justified.

Excuse... what the actual fuck? Um, where are you getting this idea? I thought I was relatively clear, from the start, that I was not talking about morality.

It's quite something that you're still not getting it. All argument presupposes morality, recognized or not. All argument is about justified behavior or unjust behavior, whether that behavior be thought, expression, or something else.

Conjecture, and not relevant.

No. That's established by observation of children who are assaulted and then treated in various ways. And it's relevant because you wanted to defend something in terms of consequences but did not consider all the consequences.

 

[Oeconomist]

@himeleth—

Yup.

 

[definitionofinsanity]

@Oeconomist

Nope. Those weren't my words, and anyone can review my remarks and yours now.

he child was just a child; moral responsibility rests with the negligent parent, and any sanction — whether it be rebuke, violence, expulsion, or some combination of these — should be imposed on the parent. It was simply wrong to trip the child.

...Unless you want to try and argue that you can use "wrong" without implying there is a "right." Good luck with that. Knowing you, you might actually try that. And, no, I'm not interesting in debating that and right versus wrong. That was not an invitation, I assure you.

There's no point in your attempting a falsification of the sort that sometimes works with out a record but fails when the discourse is text.

Intellectual dishonesty it is with you, then.

You're still trying to have the cake of morality (right-or-wrong) while eating it too.

Not when I'm not arguing from the perspective of morality. You can accuse me of doing shit I never fucking did all you want. Don't forget: you were one the that made it a point to try and call others obfuscating liars and using the text as evidence.

There was and remains that contradiction.

Careful. That's the first step to delusion.

No, because, while you argued on the presumption that law is an embodiment of morality

No, again, and another horseshit misconstruing straw man. Me using law as an example that children are not always considered children with no higher standard is two things: 1.) Not claiming that "the law is the embodiment of morality" and 2.) Not a way for you to weasel the living fuck out of you being wrong on that count of her being a minor. Try-a-fucking-again.

I did no such thing

That's great: neither did I.

The misunderstanding here is strictly yours, and it's mostly a matter of your not seeing the logical implications of your own words.

I have repeatedly pointed out where you have misconstrued my argument, to the point where I can't believe you're honestly doing it accidentally and not operating under malfeasance. If you're not going to operate on good faith and are going to continue to react to being called out on bad faith arguments with basically telling me you knew what I was really saying... when I didn't say what you claim I said... then you're going to have the fucking privilege of being only the 2nd person to earn a perma-block for me if you continue this bullshit.

At this point, you're no longer debating or discussing - you're flat-out fucking trolling. And not even doing that good of a job at that.

Easy enough. You asked a rhetorical question:

Easy enough retort: that's not a fucking principal. Again, showing you can't operate on good faith. You took me asking you a question and read into it to an... ALARMING degree to the point I wonder if you have a wall with red strings leading all over the place and somehow divined I meant something deeper.

I hope to hell you don't act like this offline.

This question was presented as somehow a counter-argument to what I'd written

And yet if I asked you "a counter to what" you'd reply with something about morality... despite me telling you exactly what I was countering in your argument already and you still not getting that you're arguing with me an entirely different subject than what I was getting at and you don't even seem aware of it. And are, IN FACT, convinced that I'm actually - REALLY - debating you on morality... by... not... debating you... on morality.

And I thought I was crazy.

(Your further remarks indeed begin with “Besides which”.)

...Do you even stop to realize how fucking silly you sound?

My response to your question was a simple statement of truth: that the child's behavior would be changed somehow by a variety of corporal punishments.

Yet that wasn't an answer to my question, was it? Me asking you if it might stop the behavior and you responding that several other forms of punishment might change his tune isn't a fucking answer. And I think you know that.

The reason that you found this statement of truth unpleasant was...

It was irrelevant? Yep.

that it got at the principle of argumentation that you were trying to employ

I FUCKING CALLED IT! I WANT THIS AS EVIDENCE TO BE DOCUMENTED.
Look at this horseshit. Do you have a crystal fucking ball? Do you read minds? No, you don't and you can't. Then FUCK OFF with anticipating of what I was going to employ when I made it clear in every single comment to your bullshit that I didn't care about the morality.

Claim is roundly rejected as being horseshit that claims to decided my own words for me. You were operating in bad faith from turn fucking one and you basically just admitted it.

It's quite something that you're still not getting it. All argument presupposes morality, recognized or not. All argument is about justified behavior or unjust behavior, whether that behavior be thought, expression, or something else.

1.) I don't fucking care how you view arguments on a meta level. That's not important here. Or anywhere, really. 2.) That's horseshit. 3.) I reject that flatly and without entertainment. I would rather drink molten lead.

No. That's established by observation of children who are assaulted and then treated in various ways.

1.) False equivalence. 2.) That which has been stated without evidence to both prove and relate to the issue in equivalent fashion can be summarily dismissed without evidence. Good day.

 

[Oeconomist]

@definitionofinsanity—

You wrote the expression “While morally correct”. When called-out on the stipulation, you claimed that you were

stating your own words back to you

But I hadn't used the expression “morally correct” or even the term “morally”. You pretended to have quoted me when you'd done no such thing, and there's no getting out of that falsification now.

Intellectual dishonesty it is with you, then.

Anyone can review the discussion to see that the falsification here was yours.

I'm not arguing from the perspective of morality.

Oh, yes you are. To say that X is at odds with the facts is not typically a moral claim, but to say that X should be in accord with the facts is always a moral claim; to say that Y is not logical is not typically a moral claim, but to say that Y should be logical is a moral claim. To say that Z is justified because a desirable consequence flows from it is a moral claim. You make moral claims, and presume morality in arguing for them. But you don't recognize the morality because you haven't, in all these years, stopped to consider what “moral” and its coördinate terms fundamentally mean.

No, again, and another horseshit misconstruing straw man. Me using law as an example that children are not always considered children with no higher standard is two things: 1.) Not claiming that "the law is the embodiment of morality" and 2.) Not a way for you to weasel the living fuck out of you being wrong on that count of her being a minor. Try-a-fucking-again.

No, the first try worked. You were responding to my assertion (which you quoted)

_{[Oeconomist:]}
That character is a child, and the moral opprobrium that attaches to acts by children is different from that which attaches to otherwise identical act by adults.

You thought that the law somehow embodies morality. And that mistake carried over into your argument that I were somehow contradicting myself in not adjusting my argument to the fact that the female protagonist were not legally an adult; you simply wouldn't have attempted that ridiculous argument otherwise, and you wouldn't have now abandoned that argument if it didn't hang on that confusion.

I have repeatedly pointed out where you have misconstrued my argument, to the point where I can't believe you're honestly doing it accidentally and not operating under malfeasance.

Nope. You've just seen (or perhaps pretended not to see) the logical failures implicit in your argument.

You've especially not seen the absurdity of trying to express yourself in a moral dimension while denying that you're expressing moral views. you're going to have the fucking privilege of being only the 2nd person to earn a perma-block for me if you continue this bullshit.

To be effective, a threat has to involve something regarded as a cost.

you're flat-out fucking trolling.

Oh, if you actually believed that, then you would already have stopped arguing. You're trying not to look foolish, but making things worse for yourself.

Easy enough retort: that's not a fucking principal. Again, showing you can't operate on good faith.

I didn't claim that it were the principle. I provided a statement of the principles for which you argued after an explanation of how they could be seen as the principles for which you argued; those principles were plainly stated at the conclusion of the explanation.

despite me telling you exactly what I was countering in your argument already and you still not getting that you're arguing with me an entirely different subject than what I was getting at and you don't even seem aware of it. And are, IN FACT, convinced that I'm actually - REALLY - debating you on morality... by... not... debating you... on morality.

I've repeatedly told you why you've been engaged in moralizing — foolishly unrecognized by you for what it is — and you've responded with furious denial instead of logical analysis.

I thought I was crazy.

Well, I'd instead describe you as incompetent and very much an example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Do you even stop to realize how fucking silly you sound?

Careful analysis of what one's opponent has said may be alien to you, but it is not silly.

Yet that wasn't an answer to my question, was it?

No, it was exactly an answer to the question that you actually asked; I listed tripping as amongst the forms of corporal punishment that would bring about some change in behavior. You objected to my noting that other forms would also do so because it showed that there were a logical problem with the argument that you wanted to make.

It was irrelevant?

Logical structure is always relevant.

Look at this horseshit. Do you have a crystal fucking ball? Do you read minds? No, you don't and you can't. Then FUCK OFF with anticipating of what I was going to employ

I didn't have to be a mind reader; I explained in my previous comment why there was a clear reading of what you were arguing.

when I made it clear in every single comment to your bullshit that I didn't care about the morality.

Again, you keep denying making moral claims but your claims are about good and bad. You keep trying to have your moral cake and eat it too.

You were operating in bad faith from turn fucking one and you basically just admitted it.

No, it's not bad faith to begin from the outset to expose the flaw in your argument.

I don't fucking care how you view arguments on a meta level. That's not important here.

No, the performative contradiction of moral subjectivism became relevant when you employed rhetoric of moral subjectivism.

That's horseshit.

Nope. Without morality, fact or logical validity have no force; the other party can always ask “So what?”

I reject that flatly and without entertainment.

I don't need you to entertain it; I'm arguing here for the benefit of anyone reading who is actually committed to logic and interested to see it explained that there is a “should” and hence morality in argumentation.

False equivalence.

I wonder when, exactly, it became fashionable to use the formula “false equivalence” as a bald incantation, as you've done here.

That which has been stated without evidence to both prove and relate to the issue in equivalent fashion can be summarily dismissed without evidence.

You've stated a great many things in this discussion without evidence. (Where, for example, is the evidence presented in your first comment?) In fact, most people here will be well aware that a great many children are assaulted, and that things such as whether the child is treated as a victim or as deserving that assault very much affect the long-term outcomes.

 

[definitionofinsanity]

@Oeconomist

But I hadn't used the expression “morally correct” or even the term “morally”. You pretended to have quoted me when you'd done no such thing, and there's no getting out of that falsification now.

You were talking of moral responsibility and and then indicated it was wrong to hit the child. You are lying. You obviously believed it to be a morally correct choice. And I know this because I decided you knew this. You can't escape this falsehood now.

Anyone can review the discussion to see that the falsification here was yours.

If they first fall down a flight of stairs, maybe.

Oh, yes you are.

No, I'm not.

To say that X is at odds with the facts is not typically a moral claim, but to say that X should be in accord with the facts is always a moral claim

Flat out false. And because the first assertion is complete generalized nonsense the rest can be safely discarded as the irrelevant trash it is.

No, the first try worked.

Step two of delusion. Repeat the truth you want to see.

You thought that the law somehow embodies morality.

False, and you do not get to dictate what I thought. Go fuck yourself. Claim discarded.

And that mistake carried over into your argument that I were somehow contradicting myself in not adjusting my argument to the fact that the female protagonist were not legally an adult; you simply wouldn't have attempted that ridiculous argument otherwise, and you wouldn't have now abandoned that argument if it didn't hang on that confusion.

1.) I will pay you to stop using "were" like that. And, no, no. I don't care if it's grammatically correct. It's really, really fucking odd to read. 2.) Your statement was talking of onus on child versus adult. You, obviously (because I can apparently decided these things for you, that's a helpful "debate" tactic to be able to just decide for yourself what someone else was even thinking... don't think that'll fly in court, however), did not realize she was not an adult and thus that did not pertain to your argument.

You're actually unwittingly admitting you were wrong. Um, bravo? Honesty is a good new leaf for you.

Nope. You've just seen (or perhaps pretended not to see) the logical failures implicit in your argument.

1.) You've yet to prove the existence of any and are using batshit insane deduction to base your argument. 2.) This is an argumentum ad logicam fallacy and thus you've just made yourself into an unwitting (...well...) hypocrite. You really are you own worst enemy.

To be effective, a threat has to involve something regarded as a cost.

Well, there is. With me blocking you you won't get your pretentious, smug self-important pseudo intellectual masturbatory ego boost and have nothing to tip your fedora at. Why, that's a crime to humanity right there. You might even have to (gasp) go back to Reddit.

Oh, if you actually believed that, then you would already have stopped arguing. You're trying not to look foolish, but making things worse for yourself.

Oh yeah, fuck the idea of people defending themselves from bullshit.

that it were

Stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop! PLEASE. STOP. PLEASE FUCKING STOP, IT'S LIKE NAILS ON A FUCKING CHALKBOARD IN TEXT FORMAT.

I provided a statement of the principles for which you argued after an explanation of how they could be seen as the principles for which you argued

Oh, you admit it's nonsense? Thanks.
By the way, I just decided to take your prior statement as what I thought could be seen as a principle in support of child slavery. Sorry if that was, y'know, not. But I've decided it so now you have to adhere to it.

I've repeatedly told you why you've been engaged in moralizing

...As we see RIGHT FUCKING ABOVE THIS you've repeatedly been deciding what I've been saying. Which means that you telling me I'm moralizing when you decide what I say is laughable and pathetic.

Well, I'd instead describe you as incompetent and very much an example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

The irony being that those most likely to cite Dunning-Kruger are most likely examples of it themselves.

Careful analysis of what one's opponent has said may be alien to you, but it is not silly.

So you don't realize how fucking ridiculous you sound. I figured that.

No, it was exactly an answer to the question that you actually asked

...By not answering it and changing the subject. Riiiiiight.

You objected to my noting that other forms would also do so because it showed that there were a logical problem with the argument that you wanted to make.

Objecting to changing the subject and bringing up whataboutisms indicates I had a logical problem with MY argument?
This, again, is one of those instances where you think you're making sense... but you're not. Then again there's a laundry list of things that you think are just evident and correct that aren't.

Logical structure is always relevant.

Then, please, start utilizing it.

I didn't have to be a mind reader; I explained in my previous comment why there was a clear reading of what you were arguing.

Like how earlier you decided my principles for me because my question could be interpreted as one by someone that's batshit? We've seen your track record, I wouldn't be touting that if I were you.

Again, you keep denying making moral claims but your claims are about good and bad. You keep trying to have your moral cake and eat it too.

how the hell you took that as me agreeing with you when even you recognize that in the context of it there was no way that's what I was doing and I was countering your argument from the get go and wasn't even making it about morality. I think any reasonable person would have realized that I was saying while you think that's morally correct that doesn't necessarily make for an effective solution or argument in the real world.

Ah, but I owned myself, since:
"BUT, LIKE DUDE, CHOICES ARE MORALITY BECAUSE DECISIONS ARE LIKE... DECIDING... LIKE... SOMETHING IS WRONG OR RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS LIKE, EVERYTHING IS, LIKE, MORALITY AND STUFF."
Yeah, you got me there.

No, the performative contradiction of moral subjectivism became relevant when you employed rhetoric of moral subjectivism.

Yeah... No.

Nope. Without morality, fact or logical validity have no force; the other party can always ask “So what?”

1.) And? Sometimes that's valid. 2.) "Facts be morality" is such a moronic concept that I, and any rational person (of which you obviously do not qualify), would reject it. And if you actually believe that, it's pathetic.

I don't need you to entertain it; I'm arguing here for the benefit of anyone reading who is actually committed to logic and interested to see it explained that there is a “should” and hence morality in argumentation.

Should equates to morality? So in mathematics when I should follow the order of operations, that's an issue of morality?
Huh. Yeah, math is moral implications. Never realized that before. Thanks for making me realize that! Now that I think about it, you SHOULD capitalize the letter of each new sentence! English is also intrinsically linked to morality!

FUCK STRING THEORY, GUYS, WE NEED TO GET TO WORK ON MORALITY THEORY. Deep at the subatomic level, there exists a moral choice. Waveform collapse? NONSENSE. That's a morality call being made.

You've stated a great many things in this discussion without evidence.

No, actually, I haven't.

In fact, most people here will be well aware that a great many children are assaulted

Yes, too bad that doesn't necessarily make it pertinent here, which was the kicker in my statement. You just decided, again, that it did. Stop doing that.