Wall of Mouths

That will pass as light comedy round these parts.

Did I tell you one about the rape victim?

Here’s some more entertainment for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kitten-dumped-in-bin-i … 85172.html

mrs h wrote:

You were the one who brought up the child abuse jokes thing in the first place, I really couldn’t in my wildest dreams imagine being bored enough to think up ways to “smear” you

More lies - you said, “With all due respect, Sam you have been guilty of far worse ‘jokes’ than that and you know it! I’d prove it right now if it hadn’t all been deleted!”, and the only deleted “jokes” you could have been referring to were child abuse ones. Hopefully Rene can still access those deleted posts because I want to see whether you have the decency to apologise.

It doesn’t invalidate my premise and your argument is a clear attempt “to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise”, therefore it is indeed a “tu quoque” logical fallacy. Even if in the past I have joined in with offensive jokes, I haven’t made offensive, unfunny, violent statements and a week later expressed outrage over the same crimes. Your hypothetical “Gav” scenario is irrelevant.

I do not do and have not done what I believe to be wrong (despite your attempts to smear me by making false accusations), so you cannot legitimately accuse me of being a hypocrite.

You, on the other hand, *have* displayed hypocrisy and inconsistency. You freely admit to demanding the censoring of “jokes” *you* find offensive, but when someone else legitimately criticises another for making an analogously offensive “joke”, you attack the person making the criticism rather than the object of their criticism.

And how would my alleged personal conduct (making jokes about child abuse, which I have refuted and you have failed to support with evidence) invalidate my premise?