If your single point is “trying to stop people only makes them do it more”, than no, it’s not a “leap”. That invalidates the very idea of having laws in the first place.
And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.
We didn’t say this about everything (although it is true that some kinds of people are attracted to anything forbidden). We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.
And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.
Whatever you’re arguing for or against, you’re arguing like a drunk uncle. You’re taking it to an extreme that it’s obvious no one actually intended, and then arguing against that extreme like it was the original point.
Guess we shouldn’t have any laws about anything, then.
Bit of a leap, my dude.
Of course we should have laws.
But for things that are actually harmful.
For everything else we should have regulation.
If your single point is “trying to stop people only makes them do it more”, than no, it’s not a “leap”. That invalidates the very idea of having laws in the first place.
And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.
I just stated a fact, not my opinion on it.
The leap was you assuming that i think that means there should be no laws. Which, as you can see by my previous response, you were wrong about.
We didn’t say this about everything (although it is true that some kinds of people are attracted to anything forbidden). We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.
I don’t see any such qualifiers. Do you?
Semi-Hemi-Demigod said:
I wasn’t responding to them, so how does that matter?
Whatever you’re arguing for or against, you’re arguing like a drunk uncle. You’re taking it to an extreme that it’s obvious no one actually intended, and then arguing against that extreme like it was the original point.
I’m not arguing against extremes, I’m arguing against a bad argument. And I’m not drunk, I only wish I were.