|
Post by ironbite on Mar 26, 2010 21:32:01 GMT -5
Which set of lips?
Ironbite-*Rock Eyebrow raise*
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 26, 2010 23:02:48 GMT -5
If you have to ask...
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 26, 2010 23:42:13 GMT -5
Oh, he does. Such is the way of the Bite.
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 15:34:32 GMT -5
So... you're saying that i'm right? NONE of those links (and some of them are useless because they are based on opinion and nothing else) do actually say that dressing above your age (what you numbnuts would call inappropriate) is a sign of an abused child. Either you are fucked up in your head or you cannot comprenend words you read. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 29, 2010 17:22:36 GMT -5
So... you're saying that i'm right? NONE of those links (and some of them are useless because they are based on opinion and nothing else) do actually say that dressing above your age (what you numbnuts would call inappropriate) is a sign of an abused child. Either you are fucked up in your head or you cannot comprenend words you read. Which is it? Please show us where you only addressed the premise that "dressing above one's age" is indicative of sexual abuse. Please, go on; from what I saw, you disputed not only that but that sexually abused children behave sexually in ways that are considered alarming or that only come with obvious, prior sexual experience.
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 18:14:27 GMT -5
So... you're saying that i'm right? NONE of those links (and some of them are useless because they are based on opinion and nothing else) do actually say that dressing above your age (what you numbnuts would call inappropriate) is a sign of an abused child. Either you are fucked up in your head or you cannot comprenend words you read. Which is it? Please show us where you only addressed the premise that "dressing above one's age" is indicative of sexual abuse. Please, go on; from what I saw, you disputed not only that but that sexually abused children behave sexually in ways that are considered alarming or that only come with obvious, prior sexual experience. I'd be happy to except that NO ONE ARGUED AGAINST ANYTHING ELSE IN MY POST. I can't very well start arguing against points that have not been made, can i? Well i could but then i would have to go with the imaginary fairies like you do and make shit up to argue against, also known as strawmen. Of course, for a retarded man to win a debate, he can't argue with sane men, he needs to put up strawmen and beat them down instead of actually arguing against what was said. Since i can't get any kind of valid form of discussion out of a complete and utter fucktard... This discussion is over.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 29, 2010 18:17:46 GMT -5
I'll address the other stuff later (late for school, late for school!) but, taking into consideration his history when it comes to child rape, I'm taking this particular judge's "Gosh, well a doctor thought she was in her teens" the same way I would an uncited source from Skyfire. I didn't see anything in any of these articles that actually came from the doctor who examined her. As for her dressing provocatively and acting precociously, the first thing I thought of was that she's been sexually abused before. Sexually inappropriate behavior and dress in little girls is actually a warning sign of sexual abuse. No it isn't, not at all. It depends more on what group they are involved with than anything else. Please go back and read what you wrote before calling others fucktards, numbnuts, and whatever other 5-year-old insults you have up your sleeves. I accept that those links have nothing to do with dressing precociously, but then you didn't say that she was wrong about the other point that you argued against.
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 18:32:52 GMT -5
No it isn't, not at all. It depends more on what group they are involved with than anything else. Please go back and read what you wrote before calling others fucktards, numbnuts, and whatever other 5-year-old insults you have up your sleeves. I accept that those links have nothing to do with dressing precociously, but then you didn't say that she was wrong about the other point that you argued against. That wasn't argued AGAINST you stupid piece of sheit! ONLY one line (the first) was argued against, how the FUCK am i going to argue back against something that wasn't argued AGAINST in my post? Now if YOU want to argue against more than impiousrex did then feel free to do so but HE or SHE did NOT. I'll respond to that too and perhaps in a more quiet and reasonable matter since that would actually be responding towards you where you demand answers for more than that "No, it isn't, not at all" line which was the ONLY line that impiousrex quoted and hence the ONLY line he ore she is arguing against.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 29, 2010 18:34:57 GMT -5
Please go back and read what you wrote before calling others fucktards, numbnuts, and whatever other 5-year-old insults you have up your sleeves. I accept that those links have nothing to do with dressing precociously, but then you didn't say that she was wrong about the other point that you argued against. That wasn't argued AGAINST you stupid piece of sheit! ONLY one line (the first) was argued against, how the FUCK am i going to argue back against something that wasn't argued AGAINST in my post? So she was supposed to basically write everything out verbatim in order for you to "be able" to argue against her point? Got it, I'll keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 18:39:36 GMT -5
That wasn't argued AGAINST you stupid piece of sheit! ONLY one line (the first) was argued against, how the FUCK am i going to argue back against something that wasn't argued AGAINST in my post? So she was supposed to basically write everything out verbatim in order for you to "be able" to argue against her point? Got it, I'll keep that in mind. No, she could quote ALL that she is arguing against, it's easier than just quoting part of a post and deleting the rest anyway. And while it has nothing to do with this argument that you obviously haven't understood, yes, you pretty much have to give ALL of your argument for somene to argue against ALL of your argument, people aren't able to read minds over the interwebs. Also, i edited my above post to make it clearer since i knew your dumb arse wouldn't get my point.
|
|
|
Post by Spark on Mar 29, 2010 23:12:32 GMT -5
I'll address the other stuff later (late for school, late for school!) but, taking into consideration his history when it comes to child rape, I'm taking this particular judge's "Gosh, well a doctor thought she was in her teens" the same way I would an uncited source from Skyfire. I didn't see anything in any of these articles that actually came from the doctor who examined her. As for her dressing provocatively and acting precociously, the first thing I thought of was that she's been sexually abused before. Sexually inappropriate behavior and dress in little girls is actually a warning sign of sexual abuse. No it isn't, not at all. It depends more on what group they are involved with than anything else. Which is why sheit like "the promise" always fail. Regardless of what, raping a child should lead to extreme torture ending in death, when i was in Afghanistan i met the kind of people who could do that just right, i suggest we send all pedophiles to them. If nothing else, the nitrogen rich meat could fertilise their ground. I didn't quote the rest earlier because it wasn't necessary. The problem was your complete dismissal of what valsa said. Even if she were only half right, you would still have been wrong in saying "No it isn't. Not at all." And here's one that mentions provocative dress; under Adolescents. www.zebracentre.ca/index.php
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 30, 2010 11:23:23 GMT -5
Please go back and read what you wrote before calling others fucktards, numbnuts, and whatever other 5-year-old insults you have up your sleeves. I accept that those links have nothing to do with dressing precociously, but then you didn't say that she was wrong about the other point that you argued against. That wasn't argued AGAINST you stupid piece of sheit! ONLY one line (the first) was argued against, how the FUCK am i going to argue back against something that wasn't argued AGAINST in my post? Now if YOU want to argue against more than impiousrex did then feel free to do so but HE or SHE did NOT. I'll respond to that too and perhaps in a more quiet and reasonable matter since that would actually be responding towards you where you demand answers for more than that "No, it isn't, not at all" line which was the ONLY line that impiousrex quoted and hence the ONLY line he ore she is arguing against. You have a very odd definition of "over."
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Mar 30, 2010 14:36:48 GMT -5
Please go back and read what you wrote before calling others fucktards, numbnuts, and whatever other 5-year-old insults you have up your sleeves. I accept that those links have nothing to do with dressing precociously, but then you didn't say that she was wrong about the other point that you argued against. That wasn't argued AGAINST you stupid piece of sheit! ONLY one line (the first) was argued against, how the FUCK am i going to argue back against something that wasn't argued AGAINST in my post? Now if YOU want to argue against more than impiousrex did then feel free to do so but HE or SHE did NOT. I'll respond to that too and perhaps in a more quiet and reasonable matter since that would actually be responding towards you where you demand answers for more than that "No, it isn't, not at all" line which was the ONLY line that impiousrex quoted and hence the ONLY line he ore she is arguing against. You KNOW you ARE making it RATHER difficult TO take you SERIOUSLY between your INSULTS and CAPS locking EVERY second or THIRD word?
|
|
witchofreason
New Member
President and Customer of Heavy Editing, Inc.
Posts: 46
|
Post by witchofreason on Jun 2, 2010 22:06:58 GMT -5
"Rape apologist superthread".
The very title of this thread is frightening, before clicking on any links...
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Jun 2, 2010 22:35:08 GMT -5
Discussion descending to interwebz-poo flinging in 3,2,1...
|
|