Yeah. I hope It is pretty obvious that is what I meant and just used the wrong word. But thanks.
Like most people I am fine with 2017 US social norms and would not advocate a man in their 30s have sex with a 15 year old postmenarchal girl. I also recognize historically most societies across most times would find this perfectly acceptable. Including the time biblical texts were around, which is why religious people who look to historical texts as end-all to moral clarity might not see it as a big deal, including lots of Muslims and certain Christian sects. In fact, in France right now they are debating whether to institute an age of consent law for the first time because so many recent immigrant men from Muslim countries are legally having sex with very young teenage girls (which is morally perfectly fine in their culture), and it is upsetting people there.
It was obvious what I meant and just used the wrong word. If you want to use that as an excuse to just make fun of that and not even address the issue that is fine. Most people I debate on this site just rely on personal attacks and name-calling and dont really address the issue at hand at all, so it wouldn't be anything new.
It wasn't about using the wrong word. It's that you didn't know the difference between post and pre, and you've previously said a lot of silly shit, so... Worth busting balls over that imho.
Not like I called you a fag or anything though... Jeeeeeeeeeeez.
Anyway, sure.. Happy to debate. What are we debating? That certain religions don't have a problem with having sex with minors? Or that it's an acceptable reason for religious folks to have sex with minors and not be morally corrupted by it?
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
Druff, are you buying into these arguments now that the Mueller team and the FBI are corrupt Hillary shills who were planning on framing Trump if he won?
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/1...his-soul-devil
I was being nice...
I noticed you put in Elliot after our game started. Totally against the rules to throw a game. I was going to put the highest ranked RB in behind him, but that was Kamaro, who scored 2 points, so it wouldn't have mattered. You still would have lost with any of your other RB's as well. We could argue about sitting Funchess for Sanders, but that was a judgment call. That's the only way you would have won, so don't act like you did me any favors, buddy.
vegas1369: Ok, phew... But even biased is ridiculous. They are law professionals doing their jobs. They're allowed to have political leanings.
Of all the dense shit you have spewed, this takes the cake. Congrats.
Well, I didn't know throwing a game is against the rules. I would argue if you are in a spot where you have that luxury you should be able to do so, and I have been in leagues where it is fine. Hell, NBA teams do it in real sports sometimes to improve their seeding.
But it is your rules, so I will respect them and not do it again, and yeah might have lost anyways cause of the injuries.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/omaro...ry?id=51822580
all the best people
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)