It's pretty frustrating when someone so clearly twists what is being said. At no time did I say we needed absolute information to take any action, what I called you out on was presenting situations and making judgements as though absolutes were valid. You are the one rationalizing based on a world of absolutes and that is what I am arguing against. Now it seems you are trying to reverse and say being rational and objective is what you were saying and that I was demanding absolutes. Anyone who bothers to read the entire thread would see both that and how off your little synopses was.

Here's something a little more accurate:

Several people on thread: painful death for all matadors/anyone to do with bull fighting

Me: wanting horrible violence to happen and being against bull fighting are two separate things, and wanting horrible violence to happen is more likely to lead to horrible things like bull fighting than preventing bull fighting

Someone else: presents a hypothetical situation that could only be valid to the current discussion with perfect information

Me: calls out that logical invalidity and rants about the frustration of not being able to have basic, logical debates

You: misinterpret my ranting on the general level of ignorance in the world with probably other comments in the thread. You proceed to claim that basic information is all that is needed to know when someone deserves to have horrible violence inflicted on them (at least this would be the interpreted meaning given the context of the discussion), an obvious argument in support of absolutes (just to be sure you're aware, this means extremes of reasoning, black and white and nothing in between).

Me: Responds with great vigor about all the objective issues with judging by absolutes

You: perhaps realizing where you got confused you attempt to backtrack and reverse the entire argument and claim that I am the one arguing for absolutes. Your argument starts to degrade into personal attacks only enhancing it's objective invalidity.