Who gives a **** about any of that nonsense? What matters is that the school considers the pre-marital sex ban solution to be the most effective means of achieving their goals.If more than one solution is acceptable, then simply banning pre-marital sex is not necessary.
No, you made up an excuse for her stupidity.No, I did this oh so difficult thing of looking at what her reasons might have been.
If you were simply looking at what her reasons might have been, you would not have been responding to my post because you would have realized her reasoning has absolutely no effect on my statement whatsoever.
Yes you did: "The point is the contract was a bad one"I did not supply a value judgement on them.
That is a value judgement.
"The point is the contract was a bad one, not that she did not violate it."I did not position her as a victim.
Actually, it is entirely dependent on what you said. The combination of you making up excuses for her stupid decisions and your VALUE judgment about the contract is a promotion of the victim mentality, regardless of whether or not you are willing to admit it.In fact, your whole argument has had jack **** to do with what I actually said.
That's nonsense. I've been arguing against your position this entire time. Unlike you, I have actually used your statements as the basis of my rebuttals. I certainly never made any absurd statements like "so only one solution is acceptable?" when nothing at all was being discussed about acceptability, only efficacy.That is a straw man: you invented a position and argued against it since you could not argue against my actual position.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language