ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
So glad you agree that child porn is child abuse.
What I may have done in the past is a red herring where to avoid specific topics by shifting it to a different argument......Richard Oliver
You`re using a Strawman Argument, to refute a Strawman Argument..
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
Yes outlaw because Wikipedia is the most reliable and is an authoritative resource. High School teachers won't even allow their students to use Wikipedia as their only source when writing a paper. That is the problem, with allowing anyone to edit a encyclopedia, you don't get the best results. You should look up the sources in that Wikipedia article and use a primary source.
California statutes on child pornography is broken up into 5 separate statutes.
California Penal Code 311.1 which is the statute that can be used to prosecute the possession of child pornography does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.3 does use the term sexual exploitation and specifies it is for those under the age of 18. Though this statute only applies to the creation and/or distribution of child pornography, not the possession or viewing of child pornography.
California Penal Code 311.4 which is used to prosecutes individuals who either attempts or gets a minor to perform in child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.10 which is used to prosecute individuals in promoting or distributing child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
California Penal Code 311.11 which is used to prosecute individuals who possess child pornography. This statute does not use the term child abuse nor child exploitation.
So Orphan Crow by your logic, because the State of California does not specifically correlate child pornography and child abuse or exploitation together except for the creation and distribution of it, then the state of California’s Penal Code has cracks in it and the rest of the house cannot be built on it. That is not what the law is saying. Again just because it doesn’t say it in one part of the penal code doesn’t mean that the legislature doesn’t view it that way, it is dealt with in another part of the code. Just like with Watchtower’s Policy, you have to take the whole policy in total not just a small part or a part of a sentence.
Even from Wikipedia itself:
Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.
Orphan Crow - "...You are putting lipstick on a pig, Richard... either that or building a straw man, I am not sure which."
A straw man putting lipstick on a pig?
Putting lipstick on a straw pig?
Building a straw pig on a lipstick man?
With Richard, the possibilities are truly endless...
So attacking me and not the argument is what it has come down too. Please dispute the fact that Watchtower did state in the BOE Protecting Minors from Abuse that it clearly states that child pornography is child abuse.
That is the problem, with allowing anyone to edit a encyclopedia, you don't get the best results.....Richard Oliver
That's your rebutal?
Wikipedia is misrepresenting the definition of a Strawman Arguement?
www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argumentFeb 4, 2016 - Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Your inability to understand the definition of words and poor reading comprehension..
Is beyond the pale..
You`re using a Strawman Argument, to refute a Strawman Argument. -- OUTLAW
OUTLAW -- I'm sorry, but I also have to take issue with the fact that you cited Wikipedia's "Straw Man" argument page.
You should have cited Wikipedia's entry for "Fucktard."
Outlaw - "You're using a Strawman Argument, to refute a Strawman Argument."
Way to fight fire with fire, Ollie!