> Then that's an irreconcilable difference between us. I happen to think that factual details matter and are very important. Moral narratives, not so much.
1) The point I was making is that there shouldn't be any prosecutions of this kind, so what act they are prosecuted under is irrelevant.
2) You then pretending I am arguing a moral narrative when it isn't. I am arguing on principle. That are not the same thing.
BTW I didn't form this opinion from news articles online. I came to this opinion by reading books around the subject, where half of each page is often citations.
> No, I'm just pointing out some very basic logical gaps in some of the stuff you were saying.
No you didn't. You asserted it was so and then told me I imagined half of it. That is literally gas-lighting.
> Which would suggest that you are, at worst, perhaps a bit underinformed about certain things.
You haven't shown that at all. What you did was ignore the point I was trying to make and get into minutia about what act who was being prosecuted under.
This is disingenuous.
> Or otherwise not taking as critical an eye to the various media sources you ingest as you perhaps could be.
I do. You are making the assertion (without evidence) I don't and I don't appreciate it. When the Epstein court documents were released, I read a fair deal of it (it is well over 1000 pages). When Activision was taken to court for sexual discrimination I read the actual complaint submitted to the Californian court. You know why I read the original court documents? I realised I had been lied to before by some media sources (some of those people believe to be credible as well).
So I actually do go to the original source video, document wherever possible.
So your assertions made without evidence are disingenuous.
> That's all that need be said. I recommend we give this topic a rest, and move onto other threads.
Not at all. You tried to gaslight me. You didn't actually engage with anything I said. That is disingenuous.
1) The point I was making is that there shouldn't be any prosecutions of this kind, so what act they are prosecuted under is irrelevant.
2) You then pretending I am arguing a moral narrative when it isn't. I am arguing on principle. That are not the same thing.
BTW I didn't form this opinion from news articles online. I came to this opinion by reading books around the subject, where half of each page is often citations.
> No, I'm just pointing out some very basic logical gaps in some of the stuff you were saying.
No you didn't. You asserted it was so and then told me I imagined half of it. That is literally gas-lighting.
> Which would suggest that you are, at worst, perhaps a bit underinformed about certain things.
You haven't shown that at all. What you did was ignore the point I was trying to make and get into minutia about what act who was being prosecuted under.
This is disingenuous.
> Or otherwise not taking as critical an eye to the various media sources you ingest as you perhaps could be.
I do. You are making the assertion (without evidence) I don't and I don't appreciate it. When the Epstein court documents were released, I read a fair deal of it (it is well over 1000 pages). When Activision was taken to court for sexual discrimination I read the actual complaint submitted to the Californian court. You know why I read the original court documents? I realised I had been lied to before by some media sources (some of those people believe to be credible as well).
So I actually do go to the original source video, document wherever possible.
So your assertions made without evidence are disingenuous.
> That's all that need be said. I recommend we give this topic a rest, and move onto other threads.
Not at all. You tried to gaslight me. You didn't actually engage with anything I said. That is disingenuous.