Lol! Of course they have. I invited them. This is a good topic to show how misinformed and how bad their position is. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell to come out of this looking good.
I want them to engage. Every time they engage, they show their ignorance.
For example, RO doesn't get what a straw man argument is. He claims that because I presented a fact that cannot be refuted that it is a straw man argument and yet it is the farthest thing from a straw man that you can find.
A straw man argument distorts, exaggerates and misrepresents. I didn't do that. I narrowed and defined - I presented the definition of child pornography clearly, definitively and narrow. I did not distort or exaggerate.
The grey areas, the ones that are all foggy and blurry, the areas where distortion and exaggeration occur, are in the areas that RO feels so comfortable in trying to capture people inside. Trying to get an argument going in those grey areas are where straw man arguments thrive.
The WT has presented child pornography in broad terms - just as one simple thing - "child pornography". That means that the child pornography that I described so narrowly does fit within that umbrella term. And, it does fit into what the WT claims is not child abuse.
Stack on track, RO. Stay focused. You can do it. I haven't given up on you yet. Today is a new day and the clouds still have a chance of breaking.
