Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

"Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
286 replies to this topic

#217 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 35,062
  • Reputation: 9,230
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:56 AM

I always wanted to be someones manfriend (no homo)...


I'm curious Kurb... I'm curious how me saying that Cantrell and Zula having a "love fest" for each other on here is somehow "calling them gay" as Cantrell accuses, but Cantrell calling you and I "manfriends" isn't intended as a gay slur? Hmmm...

#218 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,865
  • Reputation: 4,621
Administrators

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:00 AM

I honestly just ignore him. When my 13 month old throws fits I ignore that too. Same thing here.
I'm seriously considering putting you two on ignore for each other.

Actually I should put him on ignore for everyone...

#219 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 35,062
  • Reputation: 9,230
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:11 AM

I honestly just ignore him. When my 13 month old throws fits I ignore that too. Same thing here.
I'm seriously considering putting you two on ignore for each other.

Actually I should put him on ignore for everyone...


Yeah, you're right... and with the exception of what I just posted, I've pretty much spent this thread trying to get Cantrell riled up enough to type out giant walls of text, which I've been pretty successful at.

I'm sure what I just typed will be ignored or one or two words will be pulled out and harped on for a while... so whatever...

#220 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,896
  • Reputation: 20,231
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

ok lets settle this then.

ncb do you believe that objectifying women is wrong?

#221 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,100
  • Reputation: 2,410
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

ok lets settle this then.

ncb do you believe that objectifying women is wrong?


Huddle Counseling session begins:

Hoping nobody needs a tissue

#222 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,896
  • Reputation: 20,231
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:29 PM

i was going to tell you to stop adding nothing to threads but then i remembered the last six pages of this one

#223 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,100
  • Reputation: 2,410
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:31 PM

i was going to tell you to stop adding nothing to threads but then i remembered the last six pages of this one


I think you have a good heart, but are getting to embark on a long road of frustration with the "intervention". Just sayin...

#224 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,896
  • Reputation: 20,231
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:36 PM

im not "intervening" i'm trying to determine whether or not there is any substantial base to GS's claims.

i see my statement about adding nothing still stands

#225 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 35,062
  • Reputation: 9,230
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

ok lets settle this then.

ncb do you believe that objectifying women is wrong?


Just so we're on the same page... I did some googling on "objectifying women" making sure I understood what you are asking me.

My understanding of "objectifying women" is to treat women merely as a instrument of sexual pleasure or desire. Is that an agreeable definition? If so...

...to answer your question... yes, I do believe that that practice is wrong.

#226 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,896
  • Reputation: 20,231
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:46 PM

i'd say that's a good starting place for sure. GS is pretty convinced you don't think rape is rape in all cases and that sometimes the rape victim is to blame rather than the rapist who did the raping... is he wrong?

#227 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 35,062
  • Reputation: 9,230
HUDDLER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:55 PM

i'd say that's a good starting place for sure. GS is pretty convinced you don't think rape is rape in all cases and that sometimes the rape victim is to blame rather than the rapist who did the raping... is he wrong?


Honestly I'm a tad offended that you even need ask that.

He got all this "rape apology" stuff from one comment I made in a thread about a girl who was statutorily raped by her supervisor in a Starbucks. Yeah, I probably could have worded what I said a little differently, but you know Cantrell... picks up on one thing and runs with it...

Long story short (and I linked my previous response to this in the post from this morning) I was not saying the girl wasn't raped. I wasn't saying that she caused the rape or anything even remotely like that... rape is a serious, serious issue and I would never wish it on any woman. That particular thread was about her suing Starbucks because they didn't prevent the situation when in fact Starbucks and her own family intervened (multiple times I might add), she continued that relationship willingly, and then four years later, sued for money damages because of it.

The guy in that case was a sleeze, he slept with an underage girl and was rightly convicted for it. I've never said otherwise. My comments were SOLELY in regards to the lawsuit not the rape.

#228 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,896
  • Reputation: 20,231
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

Honestly I'm a tad offended that you even need ask that.

He got all this "rape apology" stuff from one comment I made in a thread about a girl who was statutorily raped by her supervisor in a Starbucks. Yeah, I probably could have worded what I said a little differently, but you know Cantrell... picks up on one thing and runs with it...

Long story short (and I linked my previous response to this in the post from this morning) I was not saying the girl wasn't raped. I wasn't saying that she caused the rape or anything even remotely like that... rape is a serious, serious issue and I would never wish it on any woman. That particular thread was about her suing Starbucks because they didn't prevent the situation when in fact Starbucks and her own family intervened (multiple times I might add), she continued that relationship willingly, and then four years later, sued for money damages because of it.

The guy in that case was a sleeze, he slept with an underage girl and was rightly convicted for it. I've never said otherwise. My comments were SOLELY in regards to the lawsuit not the rape.


i don't mean to offend, i'm asking it for the sake of what we're trying to unearth here. GS somehow has gotten the impression that you're "pro-rape" which is clearly a misnomer of some sort. i'm trying to get to the bottom of it.

continuing in this vein, would you say there's a difference between statuatory rape and "regular" rape (i'm not sure what you'd call it) as it relates to the morality or legality of it, or the punishment involved? or simply the terms?