[biblewonk]

Yes. Please enlighten me.

Your challenge in post #45 implies that you would argue that no such person exists. Then you admit that they do by your next question. Since they obviously existed why did you even make the challenge?

[MrLeRoy]

Your challenge in post #45 implies that you would argue that no such person exists. Then you admit that they do by your next question.

Yup. So will you ever answer that question?

"Should we ban drugs---including the deadly and addictive drug alcohol---for ALL adults (including those with no spouses or children) because SOME adults with spouses and children who use drugs neglect their obligations?"

[pupdog]

Your challenge in post #45 implies that you would argue that no such person exists. Then you admit that they do by your next question. Since they obviously existed why did you even make the challenge?

Because if your point was valid, then you should have no problem in answering it. Disproving a premise by taking it to its extreme is a standard logical procedure. If there is no correct answer to it (which your continued ducking of the question strongly implies), then that means your original premise is false.