[rubicon33]

> doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime

Nobody said that

> they are a horrible, detestable human

Nobody said that either

All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.

[tsumnia]

The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".

No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument.

Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.

[dgjj]

I don't follow your logic, I could see either

1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".

or

2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".

being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement

[tsumnia]

My apologies, you are correct. I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the connection between video game referee and child rapist was a weak connection due to the relation of "judgement of character".

The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."