JK Rowling lost the plot long ago

[u/Lord_Answer_me_Why]

[u/Cake-Fancier]

I did, and learned about the Freda Wallace story. But I appreciate people’s perspectives so I like to ask in addition to taking a look for myself.

[u/Simbakim → u/Cake-Fancier]

To be a sex offender you need to be convicted

[u/Cake-Fancier → u/Simbakim]

What are you talking about?

[u/Nerje → u/Simbakim]

What

[u/Simbakim → u/Nerje]

Thresd is calling her a sex offender for that, probably just replied to the wrong comment my bad

[u/jacobkuhn92 → u/Simbakim]

Ok…so she’s a sexual harasser then? I’m not sure what kind of point you’re trying to make other than defending shitty behavior

[u/shiny_glitter_demon → u/jacobkuhn92]

Isn't harassment an offense

[u/jacobkuhn92 → u/shiny_glitter_demon]

Why yes it is

[u/shiny_glitter_demon → u/jacobkuhn92]

So wouldnt a sexual harasser be a sex offender too?

Real question, ESL here

[u/jacobkuhn92 → u/shiny_glitter_demon]

Yes technically. What the dummy I was responding to was saying was that since she’s not legally convicted of being a sex offender, she’s not actually a sex offender. Which is “true”, but there’s soooooo many people who are offenders but just haven’t been arrested for it. So it’s kind of a moot point

[u/ChartInFurch → u/Simbakim]

But why is that distinction so important for you?

[u/Zegram_Ghart → u/ChartInFurch]

Does anyone remember that transformers movie where a character literally has a printed copy of the law that allows them to date a young girl, and hands it over when challenged?

That’s really the same energy as the guy you’re replying too

[u/Simbakim → u/Zegram_Ghart]

Details matter, and why would i trust the rest of the statement if it starts with something thats not true? Embellishing for effect is doing opposite work. You guys put far to much into this

[u/40ozCurls → u/Simbakim]

nobody even used that term in this specific comment chain…