"An ad hominem is simply defined as an attack on a person’s character in an attempt to undervalue what they are trying to say. Calling me a “moron”, whilst not directed at me, is just that. Sure, you may not have consciously used it to discredit me, in which circumstance it would technically not be an ad hominem, yet I think it is perfectly clear that you are trying to discredit me, whether you are aware or not. See here, please: "
Wrong. You still fail to grasp what a fallacy is. I never used my insults as a REASON to discredit your argument or in my argument, as it is completely separate from both. Calling you a moron doesn't discredit your argument. It may discredit you as a person but it does not discredit your argument, which is what an ad hom is. A moron can still make valid arguments and a normal person can still make faulty arguments.

"And I do not deny that I have used, and will continue to, use them against you. But this does not necessarily disprove anything I have claimed, neither does it disprove anything you have said. " I never said anything about disproving what you said. Logical fallacies in of themselves cannot be used to disprove an argument but instead to remind the opposition that they cannot use said argument to back up their claim. Funny how you accuse me of strawman when you do the same, the hypocrisy is unreal.

"You speak of logical fallacies quite a lot. Let me explain to you why this is not the best move. Hint: it has something to do with you using them just as much as you accuse me of doing the same. "
Wrong. I do not commit any fallacies. Also, I never stated pointing out fallacies is the best move, yet another misrepresentation of what I've said. I have many moves, logical fallacies are just one tool in my arsenal to weed out incompetent bs-spewing buffoons such as yourself.

"An assumptive fallacy, for example. Oh, and why not add a straw-man whilst we’re at it? You claim that my view is that rationality and impulsivity are not mutually exclusive. I hate to break the ice, but this is not the case. If it were, I would have made it clear. Neither did I say that we should strip someone of all agency if they are less able. Another assumptive fallacy. I said that because they are less able, we need to obviously take this into account. The brain development that occurs between the ages of 0 to around 25 is immense. MRI scans have shown this. I am not going to provide a source because I have already done so in an earlier comment. "

Wrong. strawman is dishonest in nature. Nothing about my interpretation is dishonest. Sure I may have misinterpreted what you said, but that could've been an error on your part, perhaps say, you failed to properly elucidate your position. In which case a misinterpretation isn't strawman, but merely being a fallible human being. You have provided no such source for brain development and furthermore what does this have to do with your argument? Provide an argument as to why brain development is to be accounted for when determining which actions to prohibit.

"Furthermore, self defence as an impulse can be reasoned post hoc, yet this does not necessarily mean the action, in and of itself, was based on any rationality. When you touch something hot, and your hand instinctively pulls away, is that based on rationality? No. The same concept applies here. There may be some rationality involved, however. Yet this is another fallacy, specifically a red herring fallacy, that you are using. The relationship between impulsivity and rationality pre hoc or post hoc an event does not prove or disprove anything I claimed; a disproportionate amount of impulsivity compared to rationality is quite obviously going to end in bad decisions. But, this is all irrelevant anyway because this argument is, as many like to put it, “riddled with logical fallacies”, and is not at all related to my actual claim."

Wrong. As long as you establish the axioms of your worldview, and your values, self-defence and pulling away your hand can both be rational. Again as I've outlined, if you take it that your life is valuable, which is an axiom most hold, then you should do actions that preserve your life, of course not counting extreme circumstances, like if preserving your life would end 1 million other lives etc. You even concede that this action could involve rationality, which is a blatant contradiction. Also I never stated this proved or disproved anything you claimed, but merely illustrated that this is not a argument that is valid. Also where is the proof that children experience a disproportionate amount of impulsivity in comparison to rationality when thinking about having sex? And no the study you presented doesn't prove this claim. It merely posits that children are more PRONE to being impulsive not that there is some imbalance of impulse vs reason when they make a decision.  Also what is the argument that an imbalance necessarily entails bad decision making? Are you saying that not just a modicum of rationality is needed to make an ok, or even a good decision about certain things? My argument is not riddled with anything but logical skepticism and factual debunking of your nonsense.

"I am not shifting the burden of proof. I thought my statement that clearly outlined the idea that I was not “shifting” it, but rather “adding” it, would make this abundantly obvious. Apparently not. I know what your argument is, because I can see your other comments on this channel. Thus it is on you to prove your claim, just as you say it is on me. You may not have directly claimed anything in this comment chain, but as anyone else can see, you have in other chains - and this claim is the primary motivation for your desire for me to show proof for my claim. Thus, as you say, our claims are diametrically opposed, and being a rational person I can deduce that and add another burden of proof to this conversation. No one, as I have said, is saying that the burden of proof has been lifted from my shoulders. But I have provided proof - even when said proof is objectively scarce for reasons explained below - and you have swatted it aside by making assumptions.
"
Wrong. Not only have you failed to show what the claim I've made is that requires proof but you also make an assumption by positing you know my claims for me. I've only made a claim about my skepticism. This is an incorrigible claim that is true by virtue of me saying it. I have no reason to lie about my reasons for engaging in this discussion. I've made zero knowledge claims, whereas you have, therefore the burden STILL lies with you. Your proof as I've already explained, does not and I repeat, does NOT support the claim you made. Try again.

"I think you and I both know you are asking me to do something that is most likely logically impossible. There exists, to my knowledge, no data that can measure/quantify such a thing. It is simply common sense. Most rational people know that children can’t consent, whether they’re experts or not.
"
It is not logically impossible. Common sense is not an argument. Only if you define rationality in a way that to be rational is to hold the opinion that children cannot consent. Otherwise I fail to see how being rational necessarily entails holding this view.

"Furthermore, this is not me claiming that since a majority has reached a certain consensus, it directly disproves your claim. This is me backing up my claim about there not being many studies on the matter of child consent, and providing reasoning as to why this is the case. You have committed yet another red herring fallacy; assuming that my referring to an authority is automatically based on my desire to directly disprove your claim. If you actually read it properly, you would know that I was saying to you why it is hard to find any studies on the matter - *it’s not that much of a disputed topic*.
"
Wrong. I have made no claim about what your desires are. You have provided no such reasoning. Also regardless of how widely contested this subject is, science does not operate on telepathically confirming that a certain view is correct or incorrect. Surely if science supports your claim and this science has promoted to the status of knowledge, then there should be several areas where you'd expect to find elaboration on such topic such as textbooks. After all students of said field who aren't experts surely have to know the reasoning behind why these claims are true instead of just assuming that they are. No science works on just blindly asserting things. There would most definitely be something else than an 11 year old study you could point to in order to back up your claim.

"
And where did you get this “morality” topic from? When was I saying they have a right to make prescriptive statements about reality. Yet another fallacious attempt at trying to preemptively disprove what you think my claim will be. "
I never made a preemptive strike against anything. I am working with what you are giving me here. I was saying that IF you think that experts agree with YOUR *PRESCRIPTIVE MORAL CLAIM* then it logically follows that they to are making that same moral claim. In which case I'm questioning their authority, or knowledge on the subject of morality, to make such claim. If they don't agree with your claim then that's fine, you can no longer say this. I never said they definitively do or don't, I am merely taking into account both options here.

"You ask me for evidence that does not exist. I give you a reason why it does not exist. You then accuse me of making a completely irrelevant claim. Straw-men, red herrings - they’re everywhere. "
If evidence for something does not exist, then do not pretend that there is evidence. Also you only said that evidence is hard to find, not that it doesn't exist, can't even keep track of your own statements, huh? More useless throwing around of logical fallacies that you do not understand the meaning of, in attempts to salvage this discussion.

"And yes, I am aware that I am not your english teacher. But I find it very annoying when you can’t be bothered to take 5 seconds and make your long ass comment legible. "
My comment is legible, as evidenced by your clear ability to be able to reply to it in a coherent manner. Clearly you do not understand what legible means either. Stop being a pseudo-intellectual by talking about things you don't know about.

"You are a “logician” and “moral philosopher”? I see. Now is this your legitimate occupation or is it a title you have bestowed upon yourself for internet pseudo-intellectual points? Looks like we have a new Socrates in the making, very interesting. How wonderful. Is it windy on your “moral high ground”? Hope you don’t fall." Philosophy is a legitimate occupation yes, although I do not make it my occupation. Also logic is just a branch of philosophy, so those who are well-versed in philosophy should at least have a rudimentary understanding of logic, of course some have further understanding of it, which I do, but this is merely just an additional label in which I slapped onto myself in order to more accurately describe myself. You claim I am a pseudo-intellectual and that I also project but this is doubly ironic since projecting is the only thing you've been doing this whole time. And more or less you are the pseudo-intellectual, in both the literal and colloquial sense. I do not claim to be Socrates, did you really just pull a name of a famous Greek philosopher out of your ass in order to mock my statement? You clearly know nothing about Socrates or philosophy in general if you think I'm trying to emulate him. Never claimed to have a moral high ground, although I am morally superior and morally consistent than the vast majority on many levels.