User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 7:24:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I refuse to condemn friends and associates of anyone; that's "guilt by association". I expect direct and reasonable evidence on the part of an individual in order to condemn an individual. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 7:28:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In these trying times, we all thank you for your irrelevant and look at me behavior - but mostly; we thank you for once again entering the thread in your dutiful service to push it directly to the top of GD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lawyers defending their clients? They will do their best to prevent their clients from being convicted/sentenced. That's their job, once hired. My personal opinion on Pedos is on record. Why my opinion on Pedos is "interesting" is another question; likely an attempt to discredit me and my "evidence-based" position. All folks deserve full defense in Open Court in order to determine culpability. I submit that all folks also deserve similar evidence submitted in "Court pf Public Opinion" . In these trying times, we all thank you for your irrelevant and look at me behavior - but mostly; we thank you for once again entering the thread in your dutiful service to push it directly to the top of GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 7:41:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:01:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:05:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, look at what he retweets. Thank you for your service Karl. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/IRTweet1_png-2673316.JPG How Brownells thinks partnering with him is good is beyond me. To be fair, this is the attitude of a good number of this website as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:19:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your erroneous and mildly insulting post is typical of people not reading my previous posts in this thread. It's an accurate representation of what you've been doing this entire thread. Thank you for doing your part citizen in keeping this thread Alive.  Edit: damn cellphone fat fingering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:37:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:46:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ignoring the personal attacks against me, you paint with far too wide a brush, with your deliberately insulting comments concerning "many northeasterners". There's wide spectrum of opinion here. Just ask an "Up-State" person from NY how they detest being "ruled" by the folks "Down-State". Ask the many folks who packed the RI State House (myself often amongst them) to protest proposed Anti-Gun laws. I've been very clear how this thread has educated me (and likely others) about Karl, and I've been very clear in my condemning Karl for his actions and explicitly made statements. Other folks mentioned in this thread have not yet made similar self-condemning statements, nor have they made similar self-condemning actions--AFAIK. Guilt by association has never been considered as valid proof in any modern court, although the people in old-time Salem, MA might have used the concept in their Witch Trials. In this thread, I've been asking for reasonable evidence against other folks and business that some folks find objectionable, mostly by reason of "guilt by association". In the event reasonable and solid evidence is produced against such folks/businesses, I reserve the right to change my mind--have always said so. So far, I've seen nothing against them anywhere near what Karl has provided against himself. Keeping an open mind. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think this thread has been useful in exposing the peculiar beliefs and actions of Karl, as documented in his own words and actions. I was unaware of much of this and appreciate the opportunity to learn about it. Aside from that, this thread has spread out into not-so-well documented/undocumented accusations of others. I don't apologize for pointing that out. Some posters seem to feel that asking for reasonable proof of allegations is some sort of "threat" to this thread. I don't apologize for that, either. You remind me of many northeasterners that I have met/know. They have position on a subject and just cannot move off that in spite of any and all evidence presented. They believe they are superior to other people and their opinion is correct because it is their opinion and not because of facts or evidence. Ignoring the personal attacks against me, you paint with far too wide a brush, with your deliberately insulting comments concerning "many northeasterners". There's wide spectrum of opinion here. Just ask an "Up-State" person from NY how they detest being "ruled" by the folks "Down-State". Ask the many folks who packed the RI State House (myself often amongst them) to protest proposed Anti-Gun laws. I've been very clear how this thread has educated me (and likely others) about Karl, and I've been very clear in my condemning Karl for his actions and explicitly made statements. Other folks mentioned in this thread have not yet made similar self-condemning statements, nor have they made similar self-condemning actions--AFAIK. Guilt by association has never been considered as valid proof in any modern court, although the people in old-time Salem, MA might have used the concept in their Witch Trials. In this thread, I've been asking for reasonable evidence against other folks and business that some folks find objectionable, mostly by reason of "guilt by association". In the event reasonable and solid evidence is produced against such folks/businesses, I reserve the right to change my mind--have always said so. So far, I've seen nothing against them anywhere near what Karl has provided against himself. Keeping an open mind. BTW it is not a personal attack to disagree with you or believe that you have some sort of issue. Yes, many Northeasterners think they are smarter than the rest of the country aka "flyover country". It permeates the region. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:47:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your point? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:23:52 PM EDT
[#10]
JFC raf, stop digging
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:25:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. John Adams wasn't hanging out with British soldiers, doing business with them or going out of his way to tell people what really great guys they were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:27:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:29:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:39:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To be fair, this is the attitude of a good number of this website as well. Okay, coincidence? I don't really see Karl as a communist or socialist, I see him as an anarchist. He talks with them on some interviews.  Attached FileFrom wiki:  Attached FileIf we have a "good number" of anarchists here, well that's great for this site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:50:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? You got nothin' |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:53:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, coincidence? I don't really see Karl as a communist or socialist, I see him as an anarchist. He talks with them on some interviews. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/IRTweet1_jpg-2674821.JPG From wiki: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/irtweet3_png-2674825.JPG If we have a "good number" of anarchists here, well that's great for this site. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To be fair, this is the attitude of a good number of this website as well. Okay, coincidence? I don't really see Karl as a communist or socialist, I see him as an anarchist. He talks with them on some interviews. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/IRTweet1_jpg-2674821.JPG From wiki: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/irtweet3_png-2674825.JPG If we have a "good number" of anarchists here, well that's great for this site. YMMV, but given overall evidence, I am placing Karl as different from "libertarians" and closer to Anarchist/Antifa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:55:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You got nothin' Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? You got nothin' I guess the court of public opinion will judge this conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:57:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess the court of public opinion will judge this conversation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? You got nothin' I guess the court of public opinion will judge this conversation. You bet, Spacey. i reckon most folks who respect the "Bill of Rights" will reuse to be the Witch-Burners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:08:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:16:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, coincidence? I don't really see Karl as a communist or socialist, I see him as an anarchist. He talks with them on some interviews. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/IRTweet1_jpg-2674821.JPG From wiki: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/161929/irtweet3_png-2674825.JPG If we have a "good number" of anarchists here, well that's great for this site. Those "anarchists" are communists. They think capitalism is evil and you'll never see them attack anything on the left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:20:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:22:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. Those other posters were correct about you. Holy fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:26:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those other posters were correct about you. Holy fuck. Nice fact-filled rejoinder! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:27:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You bet, Spacey. i reckon most folks who respect the "Bill of Rights" will reuse to be the Witch-Burners. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my poses directly defending Pedos. Do you actually read what people post or just respond to stuff you imagine? You got nothin' I guess the court of public opinion will judge this conversation. You bet, Spacey. i reckon most folks who respect the "Bill of Rights" will reuse to be the Witch-Burners. Ooohh....personal attack!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:31:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn snappy retort, Spacey! Nice fact-filled rejoinder! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Those other posters were correct about you. Holy fuck. Nice fact-filled rejoinder! Do you want me to go in some weird autistic tangent because you keep calling me Spacey, like Kevin Spacey, a known pedophile? Oh wait, that would be autistic and retarded, so I'm not going to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:32:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ooohh....personal attack!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:33:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I you think that's a "personal attack" then you haven't read all the posts in this thread. LoL Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ooohh....personal attack!! Apparently people "misquoting" you is a personal attack. You've misquoted me, so obviously it's a personal attack as well, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:42:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you want me to go in some weird autistic tangent because you keep calling me Spacey, like Kevin Spacey, a known pedophile? Oh wait, that would be autistic and resarded, so I'm not going to do that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Those other posters were correct about you. Holy fuck. Nice fact-filled rejoinder! Do you want me to go in some weird autistic tangent because you keep calling me Spacey, like Kevin Spacey, a known pedophile? Oh wait, that would be autistic and resarded, so I'm not going to do that. Yeah, don't go there, since Kevin Spacey was the last thing in my mind, but the first thing in your mind. Projection is confession. Live it, learn it, eat it. Spacey, before you argue with Adults, at least learn how to argue cogently. It might also be useful to learn how to spell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:46:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, don't go there, since Kevin Spacey was the last thing in my mind, but the first thing in your mind. Projection is confession. Live it, learn it, eat it. Spacey, before you argue with Adults, at least learn how to argue cogently. It might also be useful to learn how to spell. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Those other posters were correct about you. Holy fuck. Nice fact-filled rejoinder! Do you want me to go in some weird autistic tangent because you keep calling me Spacey, like Kevin Spacey, a known pedophile? Oh wait, that would be autistic and resarded, so I'm not going to do that. Yeah, don't go there, since Kevin Spacey was the last thing in my mind, but the first thing in your mind. Projection is confession. Live it, learn it, eat it. Spacey, before you argue with Adults, at least learn how to argue cogently. It might also be useful to learn how to spell. You realize my post has the word spelled correctly, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:51:03 PM EDT
[#30]
So wait now we are against burning witches? Wow now I know this place is going hard left.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:51:16 PM EDT
[#31]
This thread is as bad as the tactical gear forum ones. I wonder if there is a connection................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:54:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread is as bad as the taftical gear forum ones. I wonder if there is a connection................ Stop misquoting me. It's like the Salem Witch Trials in here, and all of you are trying to burn me with no evidence. If you'll excuse me, let me not read any of the shit you just posted, and obfuscate to try and avoid having to revise my stance on an issue. Also, LOL you don't know how to argue plus you can't spell (ignore the fact that I edited the text in the quote to make it look like you made a mistake in typing, which even if you had done it is clearly the ultimate blunder which shows you're dumb). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:56:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Demonstrate away then. https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1383253013674881034?s=46&t=hVg_MuU0EQWbUc3c-Ah8iw https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1371630580132106241?s=46&t=5TNooCuRf_zNw8hGHKFhQQ https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/21/stop-joining-the-woke-military/ https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/28/why-would-anyone-want-to-join-the-u-s-military/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:58:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:03:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Asked--and answered-- already. I think I'll go to bed with my G/F and maybe have a fun time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:05:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asked--and answered-- already. I think I'll go to bed with my G/F and maybe have a fun time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Asked--and answered-- already. I think I'll go to bed with my G/F and maybe have a fun time. @raf So then you are perfectly okay with people who are friends with and knowingly defend pedophiles? You haven't given a clear answer, and I wouldn't want to misquote you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:10:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @raf So then you are perfectly okay with people who are friends with and knowingly defend pedophiles? You haven't given a clear answer, and I wouldn't want to misquote you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Asked--and answered-- already. I think I'll go to bed with my G/F and maybe have a fun time. @raf So then you are perfectly okay with people who are friends with and knowingly defend pedophiles? You haven't given a clear answer, and I wouldn't want to misquote you. Sigh Why do you try to put words in my mouth that I've never said? G/F is getting impatient (not altogether a bad thing) so I must go now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:13:17 PM EDT
[#38]
If nothing else, we’ve learned that raf has a girlfriend.
So there’s an unexpected twist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:13:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, don't go there, since Kevin Spacey was the last thing in my mind, but the first thing in your mind. Projection is confession. Live it, learn it, eat it. Spacey, before you argue with Adults, at least learn how to argue cogently. It might also be useful to learn how to spell. So you're going to attack a guy for making a connection, with a reference you used, to a pedophile in a conversation about pedophiles. And on top of that you admit you're stupid. Excellent work. Top rate even. This keeps getting better and better. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:14:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop misquoting me. It's like the Salem Witch Trials in here, and all of you are trying to burn me with no evidence. If you'll excuse me, let me not read any of the shit you just posted, and obfuscate to try and avoid having to revise my stance on an issue. Also, LOL you don't know how to argue plus you can't spell (ignore the fact that I edited the text in the quote to make it look like you made a mistake in typing, which even if you had done it is clearly the ultimate blunder which shows you're dumb). How much alcohol and or drugs did it take to do that? Teach me your ways!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:14:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If nothing else, we've learned that raf has a girlfriend. So there's an unexpected twist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:15:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sigh Why do you try to put words in my mouth that I've never said? G/F is getting impatient (not altogether a bad thing) so I must go now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a thought experiment. Not specifically about anyone involved being a pedophile. What do you think of people who support pedophiles? Would you condemn them? Ask a direct question, please. It's "interesting" that my "innocent until proven guilty" position is somehow "threatening" to some other posters The question is relevant for the conversation in the quoted posts, and it shows the context of the conversation to readers, and that I'm directly addressing the person quoted. I've asked a direct question at least 3 times without a direct answer. Here's attempt #4. Direct question: Would you condemn someone who is friends with a pedophile and continuously defends said pedophile? Please provide a direct answer. Give me direct evidence on the part of the "accused" and I will evaluate it. I condemn any and all Pedos, period. Said so many times before. So you're cool with people who openly are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles? The defense of the action and behavior is an action in and of itself. I reject your crude and offensive comments. I've specifically denounced Pedos. Never said anything like you insinuate. John Adams defending Brit troops involved in "Boston Massacre" and getting them acquitted shows the difference. Fair play and respect for longstanding Constitutional and Judicial practices goes a long way toward credibility. John Adams went forth in being a major player in Independence. Asking for decent and solid evidence against those "accused' is nothing more than simple "fair-play" and what is demanded in US Court systems. Denying such is akin to "Witch Hunts" and all such horrors. I make no apologies for demanding reasonable evidence before making any judgment. You've admitted that Karl's beliefs and actions are without a question condemnable. He's a pinko cunt, which we all agree. Sinistral has come into this thread and defended Karl and Karl's actions. He's done it repeatedly in other forums and has gone out of his way to do so. The defense of the condemnable actions is an action in and of itself. That was the point of the thought exercise. I directly asked if you would condemn those who are friends with and defend the actions of pedophiles. The parallel is between being a pedophile and being a pinko cunt. Continuously defending and being friends with a pinko cunt is an action, and we have evidence of it. I'm not saying that you are defending pedophiles. Reading comprehension is important. What's your point? The defending and being friends with either pedos or pinkos is condemnable. It seems like you don't consider defending pedos or pinkos to be condemnable, because it's guilt by association? Show my posts directly defending Pedos. As usual, being accused for something I've never said. @raf Actually, I didn't notice your stealth edit. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else because you're a huge hypocrite. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this with your below average reading skills -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Now, are you going to actually read what other people read, or are you going to try and play Christ on the cross again? When you make an actual point of fact, instead of personally attacking me, I'll respond. @raf Here, I'll repost the exact thing without highlighting parts of the discourse which are troubling to you. Here, I'll say it again. I didn't say you were defending pedophiles. You keep accusing others of misquoting you but you do it to everyone else. I directly asked you if you would condemn someone who defended pedophiles, to which you stated you condemn pedophiles, but that you shouldn't judge people by association. Okay, cool, got it. You still didn't directly answer if you would condemn those who defend pedophiles. So you don't misinterpret this -- I'm not saying you're defending pedophiles. I'm saying that it seems like you're okay with people who do defend pedophiles, because you have repeatedly refused to answer a direct question regarding it and instead deflect by answering a different question. The point of the question is to expose the error in logic you keep pushing about guilt by association. Defending condemnable actions is a condemnable actions itself. Asked--and answered-- already. I think I'll go to bed with my G/F and maybe have a fun time. @raf So then you are perfectly okay with people who are friends with and knowingly defend pedophiles? You haven't given a clear answer, and I wouldn't want to misquote you. Sigh Why do you try to put words in my mouth that I've never said? G/F is getting impatient (not altogether a bad thing) so I must go now. Do you not know what a question mark is? I'm literally asking you a direct question that requires a yes or no response. You haven't given a clear answer when I've asked the past 4 times. You have repeatedly answered a question I didn't ask. I don't want some accusation of misquoting you. Can you please answer the question with a yes or no -- are you perfectly okay with people who are friends with and knowingly defend pedophiles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:17:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1383253013674881034?s=46&t=hVg_MuU0EQWbUc3c-Ah8iw https://twitter.com/emeriticus/status/1371630580132106241?s=46&t=5TNooCuRf_zNw8hGHKFhQQ https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/21/stop-joining-the-woke-military/ https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/28/why-would-anyone-want-to-join-the-u-s-military/ Is "within the rhetoric espoused by Populist Right commentators for the past two years"? Then cite tweets from an identified source and articles from an online publication. As compared to a tweet originally posted from a source identified only as "Radical Graffiti" that features the mutilation of something someone else paid for. Abd tagged with an anarchist symbol. No not really the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:19:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much alcohol and or drugs did it take to do that? Teach me your ways!!!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Stop misquoting me. It's like the Salem Witch Trials in here, and all of you are trying to burn me with no evidence. If you'll excuse me, let me not read any of the shit you just posted, and obfuscate to try and avoid having to revise my stance on an issue. Also, LOL you don't know how to argue plus you can't spell (ignore the fact that I edited the text in the quote to make it look like you made a mistake in typing, which even if you had done it is clearly the ultimate blunder which shows you're dumb). How much alcohol and or drugs did it take to do that? Teach me your ways!!!!!!! Drugs and alcohol are currently under the purview of the BATFE -- whether or not I agree with that is outside the scope of the conversation. What's clear is that Karl clearly is partaking in the use of such substances. I've been entirely clear on this up until this point, and it's getting tiresome to have people take pot shots at me about the subject. Unless you can prove Sinistral or other associates are also a part of the problem, you should stop posting. Again, this is still America -- even in a civil court the standard of evidence is a preponderance of evidence. But really, if we're talking about someone's livelihood here, we should apply beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't some kangaroo court after all. But I guess that makes me the bad guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:24:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those "anarchists" are communists. They think capitalism is evil and you'll never see them attack anything on the left. They're not very good anarchists, then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:25:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Drugs and alcohol are currently under the purview of the BATFE -- whether or not I agree with that is outside the scope of the conversation. What's clear is that Karl clearly is partaking in the use of such substances. I've been entirely clear on this up until this point, and it's getting tiresome to have people take pot shots at me about the subject. Unless you can prove Sinistral or other associates are also a part of the problem, you should stop posting. Again, this is still America -- even in a civil court the standard of evidence is a preponderance of evidence. But really, if we're talking about someone's livelihood here, we should apply beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't some kangaroo court after all. But I guess that makes me the bad guy. That's on me, I quoted the wrong thing. What should have been quoted was your perfect parody of raf. Oops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:31:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And she's not a trans person; ask her son. Congrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:32:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's on me, I quoted the wrong thing. What should have been quoted was your perfect parody of raf. Oops. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Drugs and alcohol are currently under the purview of the BATFE -- whether or not I agree with that is outside the scope of the conversation. What's clear is that Karl clearly is partaking in the use of such substances. I've been entirely clear on this up until this point, and it's getting tiresome to have people take pot shots at me about the subject. Unless you can prove Sinistral or other associates are also a part of the problem, you should stop posting. Again, this is still America -- even in a civil court the standard of evidence is a preponderance of evidence. But really, if we're talking about someone's livelihood here, we should apply beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't some kangaroo court after all. But I guess that makes me the bad guy. That's on me, I quoted the wrong thing. What should have been quoted was your perfect parody of raf. Oops. When you say something of value instead of repeatedly personally attacking me, I'll respond. Learn the rules of argumentation. This has been asked and answered repeatedly and... sigh... every time I get misquoted. Anyways, I'm going to go "hang out with" (fuck) my "irritated" (horny and wants to fuck me) "G / F" (I don't know why I wrote it like this, but she doesn't have a penis). This isn't me ignoring the conversation/direct question. Wise up, Basedless, the adults are talking. Maybe your mommy can teach you how to read next time. Mess with the bull, you get the horns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:33:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're not very good anarchists, then. True anarchists are pedantic lefty splitters on the socialist left. The term predates punk rock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:35:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you say something of value instead of repeatedly personally attacking me, I'll respond. Learn the rules of argumentation. This has been asked and answered repeatedly and... sigh... every time I get misquoted. Anyways, I'm going to go "hang out" with (fuck) my "irritated" (horny and wants to fuck me) "G / F" (I don't know why I wrote it like this, but she doesn't have a penis). This isn't me ignoring the conversation/direct question. Wise up, Basedless, the adults are talking. Maybe your mommy can teach you how to read next time. Mess with the bull, you get the horns.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
