1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".
or
2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".
being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement
My apologies, you are correct. I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the connection between video game referee and child rapist was a weak connection due to the relation of "judgement of character".
The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."
1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".
or
2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".
being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement