You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
why is a woman's word proof of an issue
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
actual physical proof of a positive interaction is worthless
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
your cult
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
You keep addressing arguments that I'm not making, claiming views that I don't hold, pretending I'm presenting a position that I'm not. I guess you're right, you're not attacking me.
Here's a hint for you: Win an argument by attacking the argument. Do not try and win it by attacking the person making the argument.
You're failing so badly that you're attacking a person you've devised in your head. You're not getting a defence against those attacks from me because they're nothing to do with me. You're holding an argument with your perceived bogeyman.
I do apologise, I was under the misapprehension that you were replying to me.
Since all of your message is clearly directed at someone else I shall ignore it.
You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
You keep addressing arguments that I'm not making, claiming views that I don't hold, pretending I'm presenting a position that I'm not. I guess you're right, you're not attacking me.
Here's a hint for you: Win an argument by attacking the argument. Do not try and win it by attacking the person making the argument.
You're failing so badly that you're attacking a person you've devised in your head. You're not getting a defence against those attacks from me because they're nothing to do with me. You're holding an argument with your perceived bogeyman.
Maybe he'll come and respond.