Yes, they can. Once again, you're following your protocol. You know all those Hollywood stars who refuse to identify sexual predators? None of their opinions matter at all either? This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter who says something. The content of what they're saying is what matters, and how they defend their opinion. Everything else is irrelevant. If Hitler says global warming is real, is global warming suddenly not real because Hitler said it? Someone who is responsible for the genocide of millions of people certainly cannot say what is detrimental so society and what is not, right? This is where you fail to argue, hard. You can't separate the argument from the person. You can't separate the person from their identity. Nobody is an individual to you and if you do X then you must be part of group Y. This kind of thinking is how society crumbles. Your argument of us being wrong is "the law passed and nothing bad has happened yet." Its meaningless. I'm sure you wouldn't say the same thing about anything a right-wing politician would pass. Why are you repeating what I said? He doesn't NEED to. But if he can't find actual examples that support his stance then he probably should instead of assuming. In general, I respect people. There are a few exceptions though... those who misrepresent me (you+enrico+others), and those who have already flamed me before (leadblast XD). Of course, most of my "flaming" toward you and enrico isn't even flame. Its merely calling you out on bullshit. If you want to call it flame, be my guest. However, you should be aware that the words hold a bit more meaning than just me attacking you. Did you ever stop to think that you do misrepresent people when you argue? Probably not, you are too busy being offended because I "attacked" you. Overall, on the internet, I am an asshole, I won't deny it, but I also don't care. There are much worse things than that in the world, especially on the internet. Constant misrepresentation of people is much more harmful than personal attacks in a debate environment. I didn't. I actually explained my argument, then used an analogy in hopes you would maybe understand it more clearly. Didn't work obviously. Its not condoning violence to be against the taboo that its socially unacceptable to hit a women under "any" circumstance. This conversation has already happened. No. A taboo by definition is nothing but a harmful thing in society. They are inherently bad. How? Don't say, "Law was implemented and nothing bad has happened in 6 months." Half the article contains the explanation? Color me surprised. Once again, read the first three paragraphs of the article. It outlines exactly what the article is about. It is not about his book. Just because his main citation is a book doesn't mean that it is about the book. If it was about the book, he wouldn't be talking about things outside the book. The overarching point of the article is more than you are seeing. I've already explained exactly what the article is about. I read the entire thing, I would know. Don't know if you have. So now its not about his book and its about his meddling in topics he does not understand? Read my post more carefully and you'll see that my description of his point encompasses both of these things and is a far better explanation of the article. Ya great. Embellishment. Already brought this up in my previous post. My support comes in the form of a vote and voicing my opinion on whatever platform I choose to voice it on. I don't judge people on the color of their skin, their sex, their religion, or anything. I judge those by their actions and how they reason their thinking. I support things that also judge by actions and reasons for thinking. Whether that is a law, or a movement, doesn't matter. That is how equality works. You don't think of people as a part of a group, you think of them as an individual. My support of equality is not supporting bills that police language and unscientific bullshit. You, however, will throw science out the window if it means protecting the feelings of someone.