[charles2013]

>>the comment in question (asking for the difference between "vanilla assault" and rape) was in shockingly bad taste.

> Why? While we are discussing why asking the question is in bad taste, can we also address the question: what makes sexual assault substantially different from regular assualt.

if you don't understand why it's bad taste to tacitly equate sexual assault and vanilla assault in the context of an article about a 14-year-old rape victim, perhaps you simply haven't given it enough thought.

and if you truly don't understand what makes sexual assault substantially different from regular assault, but want to find out, there are much better sources of information than hn.

you could always ask a close personal friend, or if you don't have one of those, just use a search engine.

[coldtea]

>if you don't understand why it's bad taste to tacitly equate sexual assault and vanilla assault in the context of an article about a 14-year-old rape victim, perhaps you simply haven't given it enough thought.

Notice how this is not an argument, but "if you have to ask, you would never know" response that closes the door on objective discussion.

There's also an appeal to sentimentality "if you don't understand why it's bad taste to tacitly equate sexual assault and vanilla assault in the context of an article about a 14-year-old rape victim".

He doesn't ask you to compare it to something trivial, like stepping on a lego or having a flu. The real comparison from what he wrote, would be to compare it to a "14-year-old assault victim" -- which is also troubling and problematic.