[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.