That was a joke, perhaps ill-timed. I thought it was clearly a joke because it was in an edit and irrelevant to the rest of my post, which had to do with the discussion at hand (that is, I made points related to my view of her choices, which is that the cost-benefit analysis approach swings in her favor).

More than that, it's a swipe that you used as an excuse to dodge my argument - it was the act of taking a debate from one of substance to one of slander.

Nope. If there's one thing I will never do, it's dodge an argument that I'm scared of, or may be proven wrong by. I only use hubski to learn, so that would be lying to myself and wasting my own time. The only reason I brought up the ad hominem bit in the first place was that I didn't want you to think I would ever intentionally duck a part of a post that I had no answer to.

I wasn't entirely sure what your point was in that opening paragraph (as I mentioned later), so I bypassed it and figured we'd get back to it. This led to a fundamental misinterpretation of the rest of our discussion, unfortunately. I addressed the rest of that post (regulation, stigma) and continue to do so to the best of my ability.

I don't think your points 1-4 are an accurate breakdown of what would have happened to our debate, mostly because I wasn't trying to make a point with that aside. Anyway we'd be hard-pressed to be more off-topic than we are now.

I don't "jump to find insults in things." I "jump" to make sure they stop. You may very well have been kidding, but in your attempt at humor, you did ignore my argument and require me to (patiently) repeat it three different ways. Does that really benefit either of us?

So in short, I certainly never meant to ignore your argument (nothing to gain). Also I asked you to clarify and you did (you didn't have to, of course; presumably we've both got better things to do than hash and rehash an article about a collegiate porn star), which certainly helped me understand more clearly what you were talking about. So in that sense it led to a more efficient discussion, where we were arguing based off concise thesis statements rather than quote-by-quote.

If you want to continue the original argument (no obligation to), this is what I would consider the point of difference:

So yeah I get your point -- the stigma jacks up her profit. Straight guys go into gay porn for a reason. But "take away the stigma and suddenly she gets nothing" is wrong. Minus the stigma, she's still doing decently money-wise for a college student.

So the crux of my argument: there shouldn't be a stigma against porn stars, and even without it she'd still be making some money (and every little bit helps in college!) and thus she has a reasonable right to complain when she's called a slut and so on.