Lol. Guess what? Those rules you fall back on that made things illegal, were in place not too many years ago. Being gay was a crime. And now, because you have reached your own level of morality, you rely on them to protect you from being the very same person you claim others to be.
Priceless!!
Holy shit! You just admitted that your sense of morality is so nebulous and fluid that if pedophilia were to be legalized,- which it won’t be- you would support pedophiles . Got it I don’t decide what is wrong or right based strictly on what is legal but apparently you do
People who marginalized and persecuted gays before homosexuality was legal were bigots, and those who still marginalize and persecute gays are still bigots
Those who support pedophilia are fucked in the head, and calling me a bigot for not supporting pedophilia tells me just how fucked in the head you are .
Priceless!!
Lol. Guess what? Those rules you fall back on that made things illegal, were in place not too many years ago. Being gay was a crime. And now, because you have reached your own level of morality, you rely on them to protect you from being the very same person you claim others to be.
Priceless!!
Furthermore, you are basically calling me a hypocrite for supporting gays but not pedophiles which is actually my favorite logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are the last resort of people who do not actually have a logical argument so they must resort to fallacious tactics In this case you are employing the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy :
Tu quoque
I’d been caught red handed. I felt a flush of shame flood my face — any normal person would. But I really flipped out when I was told I’d be punished.
theshiftnews.com
In philosophy, whataboutism is known as “tu quoque”, or the appeal to hypocrisy.
It’s a logical fallacy: a pattern of reasoning that might sound convincing, but that is invalid because of a flaw in its logical structure.
In this case, the person using whataboutism — the “appeal to hypocrisy” — is attempting to discredit their opponent’s position by saying the opponent had failed to act in a way that is consistent with that position.