what part of that is illogical?

You're a lost cause.

ok

that's respectful of you.

i just realized that you weren't upset about the adrenochrome comment, you were upset by the pedophile comment. I was so confused for a while there.

i had just assumed it was the adrenochrome comment.

I did exactly that.

@Meryl.140.15 I thought I said it in enough of a way for you to understand my feelings towards your comments. I'm glad you understand me now. I just couldn't stand repeating the same thing, for a third time.

Tbats what wore me down the most

not sure how the pedophile comment was illogical or why it was upsetting at all tbh

that part still confuses me but everything else makes sense now

Because that same way of thinking can be applied to anybody.

I can say "people who lift weights are dangerous so I don't have sympathy for them."

"People that had no father, are dangerous, so I don't have sympathy for them."

It's a list of any qualifier that is infinitely long. Therefore, is a generalization, and therefore false.

Thats why it doesn't make sense to put people in that kind of box.

It would be better to say, "pedophiles that act out on their urges are dangerous..."
If what the people in the TED talk are saying, is true, then yeah, try and get people the help they need, don't just throw them to the wayside. It can't be all of them.

pedophiles are dangerous.

since when are weight lifters and pedophiles equivalent

i mean some pedophiles might be weight lifters

okay, i agree with both of you. generalizing people is bad, and not a strong argument, but pedophiles in general are bad and dangerous. @kriegor191 isnt trying to argue that pedophiles are good/safe people, kriegor is trying to argue that using that argument isnt strong and shouldnt be used if you want to make a good point, @Meryl.140.15. does that make sense/accurately describe whats going on here?

it's not really an argument that's just my view on it

I just, can't. No harm no foul, @Meryl.140.15 but I cant explain it any better than @Wardog did.

alright, im not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, and im not trying to twist either of your views or what youre saying, im just trying to find some common understanding about WHY this argument is happening, since it escalated earlier.

And now my Bluetooth isn't working

I've explained my position from the get go, it hasn't changed.

we just won't agree on this subject and that's fine.

No, we wont.

find it odd that someone would start being insulting to someone for saying "pedophiles are dangerous" but i guess ill never understand that

I guess "X is dangerous and therefore unworthy of anything" is a fine point to make.

i didn't say unworthy, that's adding words

I wasn't insulting. If you thought I was, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

I was just using your logic against you.

Meryl, youre missing the point, and kriegor, please keep calm.

its fine if you hold that view, what kriegor was trying to say was its not a strong or justifiable view.

he was trying to show the fallacy in it, not that you were necessarily wrong, or he disagrees with the fact pedophiles are bad.

No Meryl is right, their sympathy isn't worth spending on people who they deem is dangerous.

Which, could just be, _anybody_ at _any_ time.

okay. then theres no reason to continue the argument. whats done is done, you guys hopefully have made your sides clear.

wonder how many pedos are out there that don't succumb to their urges at some point in their life

We'll never know, which is the point of the TED talk