You haven't responded to me yet. You're just criticizing the way I've worded things. Trying to win the argument by making it look like I'm incapable of a discussing.

Your response didn't address anything it was responding to directly, other than calling it an incredible tale.

I did in my second comment. And I mean, it is. You didn't address my points yet somehow made an argument that my stance is a reason why pedophiles commit acts of child molestation, which is absurd.

If you meant to actually engage in discussion, the proper thing to do would have been be to reread what you were responding to until you understood it. That way, if it actually was an incredible tale, you'd be able to easily point out its' fallacy.

I understood it perfectly and pointed out how it was incorrect to use that logic to dismiss me.

I don't know about you, but if I were trying to have a meaningful dialogue with someone online about a hot-button issue like this, I'd probably have taken the time to reword this entire comment. It seems like you're trying to imply that he's obviously wrong, but since he has a differing opinion... it's not really productive to take that approach.

This comment was literally just a recap and I'm asking why you say one is the problem and why one is the solution.

Yeah, you made it pretty clear from your earlier comments that you only wanted to discuss this from the position of: "I'm obviously correct, how could you disagree with me and call yourself a moral person?" I just don't see that as a position from which you can have a meaningful debate.

If I'm debating something I have knowledge on, I probably have a stance on it, and probably think that stance is correct. Wtf are you talking about. I never even questioned your morality, I questioned your accusation.