So the fact the she married a pedo is still an undisputed point
Your original assertion was that she should be held liable for knowingly marrying a pedo. Then when you failed miserably defending your point, you moved the goalpost.
Why would you present such a simple point as βevidenceβ against my assessment?
She shouldn't be held liable for something that wasn't known to her. You agree with me, else you would have found some reason to maintain your original assertion without moving the goalpost.
Your original assertion was that she should be held liable for knowingly marrying a pedo. Then when you failed miserably defending your point, you moved the goalpost.
She shouldn't be held liable for something that wasn't known to her. You agree with me, else you would have found some reason to maintain your original assertion without moving the goalpost.