Smart idea, sounds good. If you can’t engage in debate without calling names/being upset or understand basic concepts like which side has burden of proof then by all means ignore and don’t engage. I probably am an asswipe to you, considering that’s a subjective bit of name calling. So I agree, that’s me, so need to disprove it lol. Still ignore me though if you are frustrated.

Well, yes of course after your initial response I engaged. I’m not saying no back and forth took place lol. You originated the debate though by responding to my comment which wasn’t directed at you. That was what I was referencing. I mean just look down the comments, it’s quite clear that I was having a back and forth with Mharris and you jumped in. That’s fine obviously, but that is how it went.

“MyRedBook was an extensive network of public and private forums offering escorts a place to advertise”.
“MyRedbook.com, which hosted ads posted by prostitutes containing explicit photos, graphic descriptions of sexual services offered and rates. The ads were searchable by location.”

By not doing that they are different lol. I thought I made that pretty clear. Again, I don’t need proof to show non-crime, that’s silly. You in an argument trying to link arrangementfinders to the site that sold explicit prostitution adverts with rates need to show the similarity. That’s how burden of proof works, asking me to exonerate a site of every claim you are just pulling out of thin air is impossible. You tried to imply they were like myredbook, but showed no way as to how they were similar. You were trying to show precedent for charges, but unless the sites are very similar the idea of precedent doesn’t really apply.

“The logic behind getting upset and telling me to “go fuck yourself!” after you respond to my post which was a response to not you, but a totally different user is quite weird.”

Go fuck yourself! Relates to the absurdity of your demands and in no way reflects emotional involvement on my part. And just who were you addressing in this comment?

“”You just cited one case and did not explain in any way how it is an identical situation to this site being discussed. All you proved is that being charged with that crime has happened, you didn’t link it to the site being discussed. Your flat out wrong”

“Your job is to link that to the site being talked about, since that is what you are trying to vaguely show. That’s not a weird obfuscating demand, that’s what you should show for your whole point to make sense.””

“Why respond to me just to get upset”
Another assumption attributed as a factual basis to a faulty conclusion.

“Are you not implying they are the same? To do that you must show how or else you are just talking BS.”

I’m outright stating that when implying they are different it’s more effective to show how or you’re just talking BS.

The logic behind getting upset and telling me to “go fuck yourself!” after you respond to my post which was a response to not you, but a totally different user is quite weird. Why respond to me just to get upset?

“My job? Show me the money otherwise have a nice day and sastify your own fucking doubts aka go fuck yourself!”

Silly rational. You know I don’t mean job in any official sense. Are you not trying to prove a point? If not why are you arguing with me? And if you are, to do that effectively in this case requires you to link the site Mike is going on about with the site you are trying to analogize it to. That’s just logically the only effective way to show the similarity between the sites. Prostitution is a crime as is promoting/profiting knowingly from it, but that isn’t the debate. So showing that to be true doesn’t say anything. You have to show arrangementfinders doing that to make any effective argument.

Are you not implying they are the same? To do that you must show how or else you are just talking BS. Again, the reason you need the proof and not me is that you don’t work to prove something isn’t criminal. That’s insane logic. Just because we are having an 2 sided debate doesn’t mean burden of proof goes away. That rests with the side trying to prove wrongdoing. This whole turning to me for not citing a case of non-crime makes no sense. There are tons of sites with ‘sugar daddy’ language that aren’t charged, so you just want me to list some those.

Here’s the important part that needs a response:
“MyRedBook was an extensive network of public and private forums offering escorts a place to advertise”.
“MyRedbook.com, which hosted ads posted by prostitutes containing explicit photos, graphic descriptions of sexual services offered and rates. The ads were searchable by location.”

You tried to make it sound like they were taken down for running a dating site with some vague implications like arrangementfinders. The reality was they were running explicit prostitution adverts. How is that comparable, you showed yourself by trying to make it sound like an analogous site. Mike was the one who brought up SilkRoad, which is nothing like arrangementfinders. Why does it matter if SilkRoad is like myredbook in an article about arrangementfinders. We aren’t trying to link SilkRoad to anything, the subject is arrangementfinders.

The one case I cited is one more than anything you offered and remains on point with my original question. What I found in the quest to satisfy my curiousity was the similar rationales behind charges in silkroad and myredbook cases.

“Your job is to link that to the site being talked about, since that is what you are trying to vaguely show.”

My job? Show me the money otherwise have a nice day and sastify your own fucking doubts aka go fuck yourself!