- Banned
- #101
You should avoid absolutist language in your posts then.
Why should I do such?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You should avoid absolutist language in your posts then.
That's like arguing all right-leaning people are shaped directly by what Take Back Australia organisers and Andrew Bolt say.
It's simply not true.
Let me catch you up on these 'two'.Read feminism based academic material. I'm not going over 60 years of territory for every internet wannabe intellectual. Do some actual research before you play.
No it isn't.Feminism is not a political party though. It is a religion
Yep. Totally agree.
not screaming means she's consenting.
This is not the first time he has made that disgusting, vile and outrageously offensive statement. Seriously, when is he going to be held to account?That's disgusting even by your low standards.
Has it ever occurred to you that the victim may be to afraid to scream, restrained from making any sound, or incapacitated (drugged or unconsious) somehow?
Thats worse that the 'uncovered meat' B/S we hear from time to time. Any credibility you may have once had is out the window.
Seriously, when is he going to be held to account?
That's disgusting even by your low standards.
Has it ever occurred to you that the victim may be to afraid to scream, restrained from making any sound, or incapacitated (drugged or unconsious) somehow?
Thats worse that the 'uncovered meat' B/S we hear from time to time. Any credibility you may have once had is out the window.
That's disgusting even by your low standards.
Has it ever occurred to you that the victim may be to afraid to scream, restrained from making any sound, or incapacitated (drugged or unconsious) somehow?
Thats worse that the 'uncovered meat' B/S we hear from time to time. Any credibility you may have once had is out the window.
Right, so you're now slinking away from your words. You said nothing about 3,000 years ago. You made a contemptible statement, you were called on it and you have gutlessly squibbed on apologising for it and have resorted to weasel words. I really hope you are held to account on this.The bible doesn't mention people being drugged so as to be raped back in Moses' day. So, applying what may occur nowadays as a standard for a time 3,000 years ago is being disingenuous. Different time, different outlook, different law.
The bible doesn't mention people being drugged so as to be raped back in Moses' day. So, applying what may occur nowadays as a standard for a time 3,000 years ago is being disingenuous. Different time, different outlook, different law.
that is not what you meant. Glad you're finally being called out for your disgusting comments.
Oh, come on, you are running from your comments because you lack the intestinal fortitude to retract them.Someone else telling me what I meant? I'm the arbiter of what I meant, no one else.
Were you able to express yourself intelligibly, no arbitrage would be required, not even from you.Someone else telling me what I meant? I'm the arbiter of what I meant, no one else.
Someone else telling me what I meant? I'm the arbiter of what I meant, no one else.
The bible doesn't mention people being drugged so as to be raped back in Moses' day. So, applying what may occur nowadays as a standard for a time 3,000 years ago is being disingenuous. Different time, different outlook, different law.
Ok so what did you mean?
I don't give a toss what the Bible says. It has as much relevance on the topic of rape as the Quran, Torah, Dianetics or the Illiad.