Mass shooting at Old National Bank in Downtown Louisville

[Bill Cosby]

I know exactly what a strawman argument is. You on the other hand don't understand allegory as that was what calling you the scarecrow was. You call everyone else's arguments strawman when that is all you have. Hence, the you have more straw than anyone statement.

Also, if you think a kilt is inappropriate than you are right that there is no need to talk about it. You finding a kilt inappropriate is laughable. Let me guess though. You would have no issue if a woman in a bikini was reading to kids. What about a woman in a mini skirt or a low cut top? Is that ok?

Your attempt to save face may be plausible had you not said I called you a strawman then went on your weird rant.

And again, you’re either arguing against a strawman intentionally or just failing to comprehend the argument.

Kilts are not inappropriate. No one said they were. Men who want to wear kilts and read books to little kids are inappropriate. It’s not the kilts that are inappropriate, it’s the perverts.

And while statistically less likely to be child abusers, I don’t think women should have bikini time story hour or dress “provocatively” in schools.

It’s not because bikinis or mini skirts are inappropriate, but because anyone, man or woman, who wants to wear a bikini and read books to kids in school clearly had mental health issues that need to be addressed.

 

[TCurtis75]

Your attempt to save face may be plausible had you not said I called you a strawman then went on your weird rant.

And again, you’re either arguing against a strawman intentionally or just failing to comprehend the argument.

Kilts are not inappropriate. No one said they were. Men who want to wear kilts and read books to little kids are inappropriate. It’s not the kilts that are inappropriate, it’s the perverts.

And while statistically less likely to be child abusers, I don’t think women should have bikini time story hour or dress “provocatively” in schools.

It’s not because bikinis or mini skirts are inappropriate, but because anyone, man or woman, who wants to wear a bikini and read books to kids in school clearly had mental health issues that need to be addressed.

It wasn't an attempt to save face. It was an attempt to explain something to you that you obviously lack the mental ability to understand on your own.

Yet men in pants (who historically are the ones who are pedophiles more than any other) are ok to read to kids? Why is a man in a kilt a pervert? You want to judge someone's intention simply because of the clothes they wear. That is a your problem and a huge bias that you need to deal with. A woman dressed provactively is certainly more inappropriate than a man in a kilt. That man is completely covered while the woman is showing all she can while being within the confines of the law. Your argument keeps getting worse and worse and I know now even more so than before why you continue to use the name Bill Cosby.

 

[Bill Cosby]

“Your argument keeps getting worse and worse”

That’s because it’s your strawman argument, you dunce. And the more and more you try to argue against reason and logic, the dumber your strawmen get.

If you’re the type of man who wants to dress as a woman and read books to kids in drag, I don’t want you around kids whether you’re wearing pants or a dress.

Your adamant defense of men who take pleasure in dressing in drag and reading books to children is alarming.

 

[TCurtis75]

“Your argument keeps getting worse and worse”

That’s because it’s your strawman argument, you dunce. And the more and more you try to argue against reason and logic, the dumber your strawmen get.

If you’re the type of man who wants to dress as a woman and read books to kids in drag, I don’t want you around kids whether you’re wearing pants or a dress.

Your adamant defense of men who take pleasure in dressing in drag and reading books to children is alarming.

It isn't a strawman argument. In fact, at this point, I'm not arguing one side or the other. I am asking you questions based upon the dumbass statements you continue to make. You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

A kilt is not dressing as a woman. You said only a pervert would wear a kilt to read to kids when the vast majority (over 99% I would guess) of perverts just wear pants. What about wearing a kilt makes someone a pervert?

I will repeat part of what I said that you simply refuse to answer.

You want to judge someone's intention simply because of the clothes they wear. That is a your problem and a huge bias that you need to deal with. A woman dressed provactively is certainly more inappropriate than a man in a kilt. That man is completely covered while the woman is showing all she can while being within the confines of the law. Your argument keeps getting worse and worse and I know now even more so than before why you continue to use the name Bill Cosby.