See, there you go. Lying without realizing it again.Not true.
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.I don't on purpose. You can infer anything else you like, does not make it true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
I can infer from the fact that you are so reluctant to restate this fallacy that you have forgotten what it was, so I went back to look for it for you. The only formal fallacy you have attributed to me was in post 32, when you said that this:I already pointed it out. You ignored it and cut it out of my reply to you.
was a red herring. The red herring fallacy is a deliberate attempt to divert a line of inquiry away from the topic. This was not a red herring because the topic, (as has been stated before) is people (and government) sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, and my illustrative line of questioning did not divert from this topic.This might go a long ways towards helping ensure that people don't take emotional advantage of other people by throwing around the "L" word just to get in their pants.
At his point in the debate you had claimed that the government had legitimate business in dictating what sort of relationships between consenting adults were acceptable in the interest of ensuring that one party was not taken advantage of by the other.
The purpose of my line of questioning was to determine whether you were consistent in your assertion that the governments job was to keep people from taking advantage of each other when applied to sexual or emotional rather than financial arrangements. This is clearly pertinent to a discussion on whether such things are any of the governments business, and as such cannot be a red herring.
Your innocent mislabeling of a legitimate line of inquiry as a fallacy aside, this was a very small part of the debate as a whole, so your claim to not want to get involved in a debate "riddled in nonsensical fallacy's[sic] right off the bat" over a single perceived fallacy in a small portion of the debate three pages in seems somewhat disingenuous.
What is my problem? That I think consenting adults can enter into arrangements that don't involve sex? How naive of me.And that is your problem, and the lack of debate on the subject becomes self evident.
Ask and ye shall receive! See above. I had much better retorts this time.Please do.