Yes, it’s personal to you. You’re still thinking with your libido.
I know for a fact that it’s impossible to have sex with a human female without raping them (what they will think initially is consent). I don’t think with my libido anymore … but you still are. And that currently makes you scum.
I also find it very interesting that the two biggest trolls on this board, the two people who won’t debate, find a kinship with each other.
I smell a set-up. 
The two he deems trolls, are the two he wants to debate the most… huh! 
I’d debate Aegean as well! But he’s now only the third biggest troll.
I want to debate people who ad hom without argument to put them in their place because they deserve it !!!
Doors always open
The three he deems trolls, are the three he wants to debate the most. lol
The sole point of philosophy is to make sure that the right kind of questions are being asked
Putting someone in their place who ad homs you makes you no better than them if you do the same
Far better to only debate those who can provide valid arguments and do not use any ad hom at all
Because I want to show them for what they are.
Debate in the debate forms doesn’t imply ad homming
That’s only a part of it. The biggest part is answering.
Philosophy cannot answer questions in any absolute sense it can only ask them
There are no definitive answers simply because it is not a deductive discipline
That’s not true. Asking a question is the same as answering a question … “what’s the best question to ask?”
In the same way that we can ask the best questions, we can answer them in the best way.
Answering a question in the best way is not the same as providing a definitive answer to that question
As philosophical questions are open ended and so do not have easy definitive answers to them as such
They may have many answers or none at all and if they have many what method determines which is the best one
No such method actually exists and so all one has to go on then is the answer that one finds the most satisfactory
Sounds like a defective personal problem to me. 
So, let’s add a few more
That’s not true either.
Like I’ve stated many times on this board: nobody wants their consent violated.
That’s a definitive answer to “what does nobody want”
It’s not up to subjective OPINION!!
Consent violation happens all the time because no one is in total control of their life
So whether anyone likes it or not is entirely irrelevant because it will happen anyway
Saying that no one wants their consent violated is just like saying that no one wants bad things to happen to them
But bad things will happen anyway as that is the nature of existence and so one has zero choice but to accept this
Someone may not want their consent violated at a specific time but may then change their mind about the same thing at another time
Also when someone says that they do not want their consent violated they may not be absolutely certain about it at that specific time
You are treating consent violation as a binary black and white choice where all violations are of equal magnitude
But in reality consent violation is on a spectrum ranging from very minor to very major and all points in between
The biggest consent violation of all is being conceived because from that single event comes the totality of ones existence
But most do not commit suicide so presumably had no problem with their consent being violated on that specific occasion
This is where your theory of consent violation fundamentally fails and why it therefore cannot be accepted
For had our parents never violated our consent like this we would not experience any suffering in existence
Birth is neutral. Consent comes later. Saying that all births are consent violations is like saying the leading cause of death is birth - birth is also the leading cause of life.
Consent violation is binary and most suicidal people live against their will because they don’t have a desirable method available to them.
Consent violation is ultimately, however, binary for this reason… if you believe that minor ones are acceptable (which ranges a lot between people), then you have accepted consent violation wholesale.
People don’t accept consent violations, they just have different things that violate their consent. Just because what violates most people’s consent doesn’t violate yours, does not mean, like you, that they accepted the “consent violation”. Just because they didn’t stab themselves in the heart with a spoon doesn’t mean they aren’t having their consent violated, in fact, if that’s their only option, they’re having their life consent violated AND their suicide consent violated as well.
The axiom still holds. Nobody likes their consent violated. I know for a fact that you don’t. I know for a fact that it’s binary for you.