[stale2002]

> What is the criteria for being essential?

The criteria would be "Whatever a jury or judge determines what the definition of essential is, in each specific lawsuit or case". Thats how the law works.

The law is not determined by some sort of exact programming code.

Instead, the law is determined by people. "I'll know it when I see it" is an actual argument, that the supreme court gave, for determining a similar question about what the definition of pornography is.

So, the answer for what "essential" is, is the same answer that the literal supreme court used, which is "I'll know it when I see it" or "whatever the judge/jury decides".

If that answer is good enough for the supreme court, then it is good enough for me.

> You’re invoking the fallacy, not me

Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time.

Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.

[ericmay]

> Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time.

Again this is incorrect. I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time.

> Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.

So in other words you’re making a claim and then your defense of that claim is “the law will decide in a court case”. Ok… lol.

[stale2002]

> . I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time

You said this "I asked at what point something crosses over "

This is literally you asking at what point something crosses over.

[ericmay]

Not in the context you’re referring to. Asking at what point doesn’t have to mean some exact discrete point - you’re just selectively interpreting it that way to go on a tangent that I certainly don’t care about.

[stale2002]

Then you communicated it pretty badly, by asking dumb/poor questions, since other people made the same assumption. EX: someone else posted this "There isn't a clearly marked line to cross. It's more of a fuzzy wide wiggly line."

You shouldn't ask questions in the way that you are, if you don't want them to be interpreted in this way.

Because the poor way that you are asking questions, is such that other people have noticed the same similar issues that I am noticing with them, by looking at all the other questions/way that you are interreacting with people.

[ericmay]

Ok then just don't bother responding if you view my comment(s) that negatively and poorly worded.

And now that I clarified what I meant you are still going on about it. Why? Are you interested in a discussion or are you more interested in trying to play "gotcha" on the Internet?

[stale2002]

> or are you more interested in trying to play "gotcha" on the Internet?

The issue here, is that the way you are speaking, and phrasing your questions, is leading everyone else to believe that you are the one playing gotcha. Thats what everyone else is saying to you, based on their responses.

When you ask bad questions, that you should know the answer to, it comes off as a disingenuous attempt to trick someone up (Because, since the question should have an obvious answer, it is not clear why you are asking it in the first place).