New
Feb 21, 2017 6:12 AM
#51
traed said: swirlydragon said: traed said: swirlydragon said: traed said: @swirlydragon I said others would compare. It's an old tactic that has been around a long while. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Ma boi, that's just your narrow-minded thinking. Those who do compare are just people like Milo. I'm far from narrow minded and I didn't say it wouldnt be so but it's naïve to think all who would make a big deal of this would not make a thing about him also being gay. It happens all the time. There are all kinds of people in this world but that doesn't mean that you should twist the fact as you did in the earlier post by saying "He isn't pedophile, he just said that 13 year old could have sex" Are you kidding me? You're trying to defend a pedophile! You clearly don't know what pedophilia is. I also don't lke Milo, he's an asshole. I know what pedophilia is, alright! If I say that raping a women is a good thing then there's a 99.9% chance of me being a rapist and yet you say Milo is not a pedophile. PITIFUL! |
swirlydragonFeb 21, 2017 6:23 AM
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:13 AM
#52
swirlydragon said: He even supported Trump, that just shows you how ugly those Trumpsters really are. DESPICABLE! i cant agree with this point so Milo is some dude who talks shit an happens to support Trump an you say he represents all Trump supportes... if i pointed out many "moderate muslims" (or at least that what they call themselves) that happen to approve pedophilia (even the right to marry babies), honor killings, death for apostasy, stoning people for adultery, etc, ect, ect would you say that just shows you how ugly those muslims really are? personally i dont believe one man represents all an im not even a Trump supporter |
Feb 21, 2017 6:14 AM
#53
Altairius said: I don't "believe" it. It's a fact. When there is an overwhelming correlation, it tends to indicate a connection of some kind. It doesn't mean it's the cause. I already debunked this for you before though about how arbitrary species classification is and how geographic groupings don't equal individual races. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:17 AM
#54
Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:18 AM
#55
now watch the pusdo leftist like vindicator and sargon and there ilk come out to defend him yes im of the far left as many people would say i call my self moderate left in betten the center left an the far left |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:21 AM
#56
silversaint said: swirlydragon said: He even supported Trump, that just shows you how ugly those Trumpsters really are. DESPICABLE! i cant agree with this point so Milo is some dude who talks shit an happens to support Trump an you say he represents all Trump supportes... if i pointed out many "moderate muslims" (or at least that what they call themselves) that happen to approve pedophilia (even the right to marry babies), honor killings, death for apostasy, stoning people for adultery, etc, ect, ect would you say that just shows you how ugly those muslims really are? personally i dont believe one man represents all an im not even a Trump supporter Trump is a f*ckin Nazi and everyone knows that, so his supporters are despicable. Same for muslims, if a muslim supports ISIS then he is despicable. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:22 AM
#57
Altairius said: SeibaaHomu said: So now that their one gay friend has been outed as a pedophile, how do you guys think the alt right are going to keep up the illusion they actually care about LGBT rights? Keeping Muslims out is the most pro-gay position. The alt right doesn't care about gay rights though. traed said: Grey-Zone said: Altairius said: traed said: He basically just said it's fine for 13 year olds to have sex but that isn't actually pedophilia because it's not prepubecent. I am curious if it will destroy him or not though but I would rather it be something else other than this because of all the backlash it would cause of comments on gays and "pedophilia" being same thing which is what people used to say in the past to bash gays Of course it's not the same thing. Homosexuals just have a higher tendency toward pedophilia (and having been victims of pedophiles in the past) than heterosexuals. "tendency arguments" don't work. They are also the reason why false narratives like "gender gap" or "blacks have lower IQ than whites on average". They usually refer to statistical correlations, but as it's being said: "Correlation does not equal causation." He believes that though. I don't "believe" it. It's a fact. When there is an overwhelming correlation, it tends to indicate a connection of some kind. It's also a "fact" that black people are on average poorer, mostly due to obvious historical reasons. They also tend to more often live in "ghettos". That in turn also means that education for black people, on average, is lower than for whites. It's questionable whether or not IQ-tests really only test "innate intelligence" with education-levels and real-life experiences really having no influence whatsoever, so So with all that said, it's quite plausible to think that rather than due to "being black", the lower IQ-on-average statics may be caused by economic inequality instead. That's why statistics are really useless to find out causation. But they are damn good to convince people of causation between two different aspects that may or may not have been properly examined. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:22 AM
#58
swirlydragon said: Seriously dude lmao Islam doesn't say that lol Where'd you read that? Well, whatever! Believe what you want to. I live in a muslim majority country and many of my friends are muslim so I know a lot about Islam. the quran states that muhammed was the ideal man and he had a 9yo wife. also some islamic countries like saudi arabia have no age of consent, you just have to be married. a few days ago there was even a mal thread about the marriages between adults and teenagers (below the aoc) among syrian refugees. seems like you don't no that much about islam after all |
Feb 21, 2017 6:24 AM
#59
Grey-Zone said: Altairius said: SeibaaHomu said: So now that their one gay friend has been outed as a pedophile, how do you guys think the alt right are going to keep up the illusion they actually care about LGBT rights? Keeping Muslims out is the most pro-gay position. The alt right doesn't care about gay rights though. traed said: Grey-Zone said: Altairius said: traed said: He basically just said it's fine for 13 year olds to have sex but that isn't actually pedophilia because it's not prepubecent. I am curious if it will destroy him or not though but I would rather it be something else other than this because of all the backlash it would cause of comments on gays and "pedophilia" being same thing which is what people used to say in the past to bash gays Of course it's not the same thing. Homosexuals just have a higher tendency toward pedophilia (and having been victims of pedophiles in the past) than heterosexuals. "tendency arguments" don't work. They are also the reason why false narratives like "gender gap" or "blacks have lower IQ than whites on average". They usually refer to statistical correlations, but as it's being said: "Correlation does not equal causation." He believes that though. I don't "believe" it. It's a fact. When there is an overwhelming correlation, it tends to indicate a connection of some kind. It's also a "fact" that black people are on average poorer, mostly due to obvious historical reasons. They also tend to more often live in "ghettos". That in turn also means that education for black people, on average, is lower than for whites. It's questionable whether or not IQ-tests really only test "innate intelligence" with education-levels and real-life experiences really having no influence whatsoever, so So with all that said, it's quite plausible to think that rather than due to "being black", the lower IQ-on-average statics may be caused by economic inequality instead. That's why statistics are really useless to find out causation. But they are damn good to convince people of causation between two different aspects that may or may not have been properly examined. the lakc of people ot asplre to be is also an issue i think |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:26 AM
#60
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Seriously dude lmao Islam doesn't say that lol Where'd you read that? Well, whatever! Believe what you want to. I live in a muslim majority country and many of my friends are muslim so I know a lot about Islam. the quran states that muhammed was the ideal man and he had a 9yo wife. also some islamic countries like saudi arabia have no age of consent, you just have to be married. a few days ago there was even a mal thread about the marriages between adults and teenagers (below the aoc) among syrian refugees. seems like you don't no that much about islam after all AOC is sutudly high in the us imo Japan is better mainy cuase it leads ot less false accusations of statutory rape |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:26 AM
#61
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Seriously dude lmao Islam doesn't say that lol Where'd you read that? Well, whatever! Believe what you want to. I live in a muslim majority country and many of my friends are muslim so I know a lot about Islam. the quran states that muhammed was the ideal man and he had a 9yo wife. also some islamic countries like saudi arabia have no age of consent, you just have to be married. a few days ago there was even a mal thread about the marriages between adults and teenagers (below the aoc) among syrian refugees. seems like you don't no that much about islam after all idek what you guys are talking about, but wouldn't it be easier to link the specific section you're referring to? |
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭ |
Feb 21, 2017 6:27 AM
#62
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Seriously dude lmao Islam doesn't say that lol Where'd you read that? Well, whatever! Believe what you want to. I live in a muslim majority country and many of my friends are muslim so I know a lot about Islam. the quran states that muhammed was the ideal man and he had a 9yo wife. also some islamic countries like saudi arabia have no age of consent, you just have to be married. a few days ago there was even a mal thread about the marriages between adults and teenagers (below the aoc) among syrian refugees. seems like you don't no that much about islam after all I f*ckin knew it that you'd bring Muhammad into this. Lol Now read this ma boi! Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty. SOURCE So yeah, muslims do not support pedophilia. (And now the marriage is also banned because what's the point of marriage when you can't have sex?) Stop making up sh*t about muslims. You nazi! |
swirlydragonFeb 21, 2017 6:34 AM
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:35 AM
#63
swirlydragon said: Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. so you consider someone a pedophile for supporting relationships between adults and 13yo's, but not when the girl is only 9 or 10? check mate i guess |
Feb 21, 2017 6:35 AM
#64
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. so you consider someone a pedophile for supporting relationships between adults and 13yo's, but not when the girl is only 9 or 10? check mate i guess Hahahah Do you know the meaning of consummated? Google it, ma boi The person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. |
swirlydragonFeb 21, 2017 6:39 AM
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:36 AM
#65
You guys do know that he's neither a pedophile apologist nor a pedophile, right? This is pretty easy to see in the quotes you're taken out of context too. He also clarified his views on the matter in his Facebook posts. Anyway, if anything, this is apologia for his own situation rather than for others. When he first mentioned it, he said that he didn't see it as a "bad thing" for himself, to now change to "I was a victim and that was disgusting.", either to get off the hook because of how society gets baited hard when it comes to anything related to the word "pedophilia" or because he was joking on the stream in the first place. He says 16 years old as an age of consent is somewhat okay. He was talking about his relationship with a 29 year old man when he was 17 at a point when he mentioned "boys", because some love to use that as a quote to think he meant prepubescent individuals when his rhetoric never really touched prepubescent but only post-pubescent (he was 13-14 he himself said, when he was "abused" by the priest) and only touches legal situations, since in the UK, the age of consent right now is 16. He also outed three pedophiles and has advocated for chemical castration of pedophiles and incarceration. He has said that on Twitter in 2015 and I don't believe he was talking about molesters/rapists, but just pedophiles, just to point out that he's rather extreme, even when it comes only to thought crime. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:39 AM
#66
swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. so you consider someone a pedophile for supporting relationships between adults and 13yo's, but not when the girl is only 9 or 10? check mate i guess Hahahah Do you know the meaning of consummated? Google it, ma boi yes i do, but maybe you should use google instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation The definition of consummation usually refers to penile-vaginal sexual penetration, but some religious doctrines hold that there is an additional requirement that there must not be any contraception used |
Feb 21, 2017 6:41 AM
#67
swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? |
Feb 21, 2017 6:41 AM
#68
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. so you consider someone a pedophile for supporting relationships between adults and 13yo's, but not when the girl is only 9 or 10? check mate i guess Hahahah Do you know the meaning of consummated? Google it, ma boi yes i do, but maybe you should use google instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation The definition of consummation usually refers to penile-vaginal sexual penetration, but some religious doctrines hold that there is an additional requirement that there must not be any contraception used Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. |
swirlydragonFeb 21, 2017 6:44 AM
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 6:43 AM
#69
Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:50 AM
#70
He also released a video about this matter. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:52 AM
#71
why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:53 AM
#72
Milo is super in the wrong here, one of many things I think hes in the wrong for. However I do think this is a big case of stockholm syndrome more so than anything for when he was raped as a kid. That being said, everything he's done in handling this is only burying him further. |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
Feb 21, 2017 6:54 AM
#73
DateYutaka said: I neither know nor do I see how this matters.why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:54 AM
#74
DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? |
Feb 21, 2017 6:54 AM
#75
swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense |
Feb 21, 2017 6:55 AM
#76
swirlydragon said: SpamuraiSensei said: swirlydragon said: traed said: He basically just said it's fine for 13 year olds to have sex but that isn't actually pedophilia because it's not prepubecent. I am curious if it will destroy him or not though but I would rather it be something else other than this because of all the backlash it would cause of comments on gays and "pedophilia" being same thing which is what people used to say in the past to bash gays, or maybe the aut-right trying to defend actual real active pedophilia or something like that. This could cause a lot of problems if it becomes a big thing. Gays are not pedophile but Milo is. Can't you even grasp this simple concept. Why are you comparing homosexuals with pedophile? They are both different. But people like Milo, they don't care whether they are straight or homosexuals. They are PEDOPHILE! Milo made some comments you disagree with. How does that make him a pedophile? He bashed pedophilia in his Facebook post. How does that make him a pedophile? I'm having trouble reaching your conclusions. Please enlighten me. Of course, he'd defend himself when people called him a pedophile. He is not a retard. No pedophile would ever say he is a pedophile. Go and watch the video where Milo defends pedophile. Seriously dude, stop defending a pedophile. So how many pictures of naked underage boys does he have on his computer? I'm not defending him. He could be a closet pedophile for all I know, but so could you. There's no evidence to support these pedophilia accusations. The media is quite good with the spin and deceptive nature. |
Feb 21, 2017 6:56 AM
#77
Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? did those working class voteers voote from trump to get there wages slashed by 3.5% and yes he has done this by attacking unions fyi im Anti Clinton to |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:57 AM
#78
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense what os the jews holy guys who kkilled kids with herpeis cuase of a right in there Faith thats right milo ben and all that ilk said nothing |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:58 AM
#79
Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: I neither know nor do I see how this matters.why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question imo sorry he defended a pedo simple as that |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 6:59 AM
#80
DateYutaka said: He didn't defend him, he joked about him. And if your logic is that he's defending the priest because he's not outing him, then you'd have to admit that you're wrong because he outed 3 other pedophiles during his career as a journalist.Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question imo sorry he defended a pedo simple as that Date, you know you have to try harder than this with me. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 21, 2017 7:00 AM
#81
DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? did those working class voteers voote from trump to get there wages slashed by 3.5% and yes he has done this by attacking unions fyi im Anti Clinton to I am not sure what you are talking about in regard to unions. I saw this instead: |
Feb 21, 2017 7:01 AM
#82
Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: He didn't defend him, he joked about him. And if your logic is that he's defending the priest because he's not outing him, then you'd have to admit that you're wrong because he outed 3 other pedophiles during his career as a journalist.Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: I neither know nor do I see how this matters.why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question imo sorry he defended a pedo simple as that Date, you know you have to try harder than this with me. im sorry i owuld have outed all pedos my self he defmed hom by not outing him cause hes a member f his faith |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:03 AM
#83
DateYutaka said: You're now making assertions without evidence. He never said why he didn't out him.Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: I neither know nor do I see how this matters.why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question imo sorry he defended a pedo simple as that Date, you know you have to try harder than this with me. im sorry i owuld have outed all pedos my self he defmed hom by not outing him cause hes a member f his faith |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Feb 21, 2017 7:08 AM
#84
Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? did those working class voteers voote from trump to get there wages slashed by 3.5% and yes he has done this by attacking unions fyi im Anti Clinton to I am not sure what you are talking about in regard to unions. I saw this instead: if he was pro union hes would VETO crap like this this is case er the GOP own cuase of working class votes this is one of the thing i think the ceatl goverment shpuld beable to overrule local govermt in |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:11 AM
#85
DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? did those working class voteers voote from trump to get there wages slashed by 3.5% and yes he has done this by attacking unions fyi im Anti Clinton to I am not sure what you are talking about in regard to unions. I saw this instead: if he was pro union hes would VETO crap like this this is case er the GOP own cuase of working class votes this is one of the thing i think the ceatl goverment shpuld beable to overrule local govermt in As you pointed out, it's a state-level issue and has almost nothing to do with Trump who works on the federal-level. |
Feb 21, 2017 7:11 AM
#86
Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: You're now making assertions without evidence. He never said why he didn't out him.Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: He didn't defend him, he joked about him. And if your logic is that he's defending the priest because he's not outing him, then you'd have to admit that you're wrong because he outed 3 other pedophiles during his career as a journalist.Immahnoob said: DateYutaka said: I neither know nor do I see how this matters.why did he not report that man of the cloth to interfere with him then simple question imo sorry he defended a pedo simple as that Date, you know you have to try harder than this with me. im sorry i owuld have outed all pedos my self he defmed hom by not outing him cause hes a member f his faith but he out pedo who happe to on the left for fun you dont see the issue i see he coverd for the prest cause of there sae views on fiath i would out pedo on both sides why has milo no made videos attacking the cchruch for cvovering up shit like that while people on t letf have made them sort of videos |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:13 AM
#87
Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:15 AM
#88
Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: DateYutaka said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? alot of did racists did back trump re you going to deny this A lot of racists also backed Clinton - not a surprise considering the USA is essentially a two-party republic. Also what's the difference between a non-racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes compared to a racist voting for Trump because he/she wants to pay less taxes? It's baffling that people automatically assume that racists vote based on racism. What makes people assume that every racist is a single-issue voter, while all non-racists are not? did those working class voteers voote from trump to get there wages slashed by 3.5% and yes he has done this by attacking unions fyi im Anti Clinton to I am not sure what you are talking about in regard to unions. I saw this instead: if he was pro union hes would VETO crap like this this is case er the GOP own cuase of working class votes this is one of the thing i think the ceatl goverment shpuld beable to overrule local govermt in You just answered your own question. It's a state-level issue and has nothing to do with Trump who works on the federal-level. i i was trump in akry state that got me in i owuld step in and say stop and atke it to the highet cort in the lad ot have it blocked if he really cares about the working class and not just the upper class side note hes so pro worker [yt[K3RwjA3xUJc[/yt[ |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:16 AM
#89
SpamuraiSensei said: swirlydragon said: SpamuraiSensei said: swirlydragon said: traed said: He basically just said it's fine for 13 year olds to have sex but that isn't actually pedophilia because it's not prepubecent. I am curious if it will destroy him or not though but I would rather it be something else other than this because of all the backlash it would cause of comments on gays and "pedophilia" being same thing which is what people used to say in the past to bash gays, or maybe the aut-right trying to defend actual real active pedophilia or something like that. This could cause a lot of problems if it becomes a big thing. Gays are not pedophile but Milo is. Can't you even grasp this simple concept. Why are you comparing homosexuals with pedophile? They are both different. But people like Milo, they don't care whether they are straight or homosexuals. They are PEDOPHILE! Milo made some comments you disagree with. How does that make him a pedophile? He bashed pedophilia in his Facebook post. How does that make him a pedophile? I'm having trouble reaching your conclusions. Please enlighten me. Of course, he'd defend himself when people called him a pedophile. He is not a retard. No pedophile would ever say he is a pedophile. Go and watch the video where Milo defends pedophile. Seriously dude, stop defending a pedophile. So how many pictures of naked underage boys does he have on his computer? I'm not defending him. He could be a closet pedophile for all I know, but so could you. There's no evidence to support these pedophilia accusations. The media is quite good with the spin and deceptive nature. Yeah why not? Stop being delusional. He clearly defended pedophiles while I am against pedophiles. If I were to defend rape then there's a 99.9% chance that I raped someone. So yeah, he is a pedophile. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:19 AM
#90
swirlydragon said: SpamuraiSensei said: swirlydragon said: SpamuraiSensei said: swirlydragon said: traed said: He basically just said it's fine for 13 year olds to have sex but that isn't actually pedophilia because it's not prepubecent. I am curious if it will destroy him or not though but I would rather it be something else other than this because of all the backlash it would cause of comments on gays and "pedophilia" being same thing which is what people used to say in the past to bash gays, or maybe the aut-right trying to defend actual real active pedophilia or something like that. This could cause a lot of problems if it becomes a big thing. Gays are not pedophile but Milo is. Can't you even grasp this simple concept. Why are you comparing homosexuals with pedophile? They are both different. But people like Milo, they don't care whether they are straight or homosexuals. They are PEDOPHILE! Milo made some comments you disagree with. How does that make him a pedophile? He bashed pedophilia in his Facebook post. How does that make him a pedophile? I'm having trouble reaching your conclusions. Please enlighten me. Of course, he'd defend himself when people called him a pedophile. He is not a retard. No pedophile would ever say he is a pedophile. Go and watch the video where Milo defends pedophile. Seriously dude, stop defending a pedophile. So how many pictures of naked underage boys does he have on his computer? I'm not defending him. He could be a closet pedophile for all I know, but so could you. There's no evidence to support these pedophilia accusations. The media is quite good with the spin and deceptive nature. Yeah why not? Stop being delusional. He clearly defended pedophiles while I am against pedophiles. If I were to defend rape then there's a 99.9% chance that I raped someone. So yeah, he is a pedophile. So does a lawyer defending a rapist make them a rapist too? I'm not delusional, I'm logical and objective. I know you hate Donald Trump and the right wing so I think that's influencing you. |
Feb 21, 2017 7:23 AM
#91
Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? During Trump's campaign, he said many despicable things about muslims. After he became the POTUS, he banned 7 muslim majority countries. Now I know Islam is not a race. But Trump is clearly acting like Hitler. He killed 30 Yemen civilians including children and said the mission was successful. Now if that isn't a racist than who is? And Milo was defending that same person and is a alt-right so yeah, he will obviously be despicable. No wonder he was a pedophile. Trump is despicable and his supporters are the same. They want to kill innocent people. Now, I don't belong to muslim community. But if I imagine myself living in USA (and being a muslim), the only things I can think of is people calling me terrorist or Trumpsters bullying me. The real terrorists in this world are Trumpsters. They are worse than filth. After Trump became the POTUS, more innocent muslims have died than white people and yet Trump keeps on calling muslims as terrorists and white people as angels. He even ignored the Quebec mosque shooting when the perperator was found out to be a white guy. But when it came to France museum attack by a muslim (in which no one died) he was quick to respond. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:26 AM
#92
swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? During Trump's campaign, he said many despicable things about muslims. After he became the POTUS, he banned 7 muslim majority countries. Now I know Islam is not a race. But Trump is clearly acting like Hitler. He killed 30 Yemen civilians including children and said the mission was successful. Now if that isn't a racist than who is? And Milo was defending that same person and is a alt-right so yeah, he will obviously be despicable. No wonder he was a pedophile. Trump is despicable and his supporters are the same. They want to kill innocent people. Now, I don't belong to muslim community. But if I imagine myself living in USA (and being a muslim), the only things I can think of is people calling me terrorist or Trumpsters bullying me. The real terrorists in this world are Trumpsters. They are worse than filth. After Trump became the POTUS, more innocent muslims have died than white people and yet Trump keeps on calling muslims as terrorists and white people as angels. He even ignored the Quebec mosque shooting when the perperator was found out to be a white guy. But when it came to France museum attack by a muslim (in which no one died) he was quick to respond. im of the left and i say trump banned the worng nations id say a ban of Gualf states owuld have been better simple |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:28 AM
#93
DateYutaka said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? During Trump's campaign, he said many despicable things about muslims. After he became the POTUS, he banned 7 muslim majority countries. Now I know Islam is not a race. But Trump is clearly acting like Hitler. He killed 30 Yemen civilians including children and said the mission was successful. Now if that isn't a racist than who is? And Milo was defending that same person and is a alt-right so yeah, he will obviously be despicable. No wonder he was a pedophile. Trump is despicable and his supporters are the same. They want to kill innocent people. Now, I don't belong to muslim community. But if I imagine myself living in USA (and being a muslim), the only things I can think of is people calling me terrorist or Trumpsters bullying me. The real terrorists in this world are Trumpsters. They are worse than filth. After Trump became the POTUS, more innocent muslims have died than white people and yet Trump keeps on calling muslims as terrorists and white people as angels. He even ignored the Quebec mosque shooting when the perperator was found out to be a white guy. But when it came to France museum attack by a muslim (in which no one died) he was quick to respond. im of the left and i say trump banned the worng nations id say a ban of Gualf states owuld have been better simple Why? So, that they could invade it afterwards? Like what they did with Iraq Because USA needs oil, if they were to ban these countries then they'd have to invade it in order to take the oil or else US economy would decrease exponentially. |
swirlydragonFeb 21, 2017 7:33 AM
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:32 AM
#94
swirlydragon said: DateYutaka said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? During Trump's campaign, he said many despicable things about muslims. After he became the POTUS, he banned 7 muslim majority countries. Now I know Islam is not a race. But Trump is clearly acting like Hitler. He killed 30 Yemen civilians including children and said the mission was successful. Now if that isn't a racist than who is? And Milo was defending that same person and is a alt-right so yeah, he will obviously be despicable. No wonder he was a pedophile. Trump is despicable and his supporters are the same. They want to kill innocent people. Now, I don't belong to muslim community. But if I imagine myself living in USA (and being a muslim), the only things I can think of is people calling me terrorist or Trumpsters bullying me. The real terrorists in this world are Trumpsters. They are worse than filth. After Trump became the POTUS, more innocent muslims have died than white people and yet Trump keeps on calling muslims as terrorists and white people as angels. He even ignored the Quebec mosque shooting when the perperator was found out to be a white guy. But when it came to France museum attack by a muslim (in which no one died) he was quick to respond. im of the left and i say trump banned the worng nations id say a ban of Gualf states owuld have been better simple Why? So, that they could invade it afterwards? Like what they did with Iraq no im anti war but mos of the 9/11 hiakacer were saudi that is fact hell owuld also abn the zionists too but that just me |
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one For the Union makes us strong |
Feb 21, 2017 7:34 AM
#95
swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. I don't know much about the story, but you know girls can hit puberty at age 8 or 9, right? |
Feb 21, 2017 7:35 AM
#96
DateYutaka said: swirlydragon said: DateYutaka said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Grey-Zone said: swirlydragon said: Well but according to your great lord Donald Trump all news are fake except Faux and Breitbart. So, why don't you question him first. He tweeted about it recently saying that @CNN @NYTimes.....etc are all fake news and are the enemy of all US people. But he did not even mention Faux or Breitbart. Trump at least answered this question (he said he watches Fox News in some tweets). You however refused to answer my question, so I'll give you another chance to answer it: If Breitbart and Fox are bad news sources, then what are the "good" news sources to you? Hiding it only means that you want to be the only one who is on the offensive, because no one can attack your side, because your side is "invisible", i.e. the ones you are arguing with don't know your prefered sources. It's cowardly, but effective - until it's exposed that is. So? Go ahead and tell me what your "shining examples of journalism" are. But I am also fine with your concession in the form of refusing to do so - concession meaning that you accept that what you said is nothing more than your own biased personal opinion and not some "fact". Seriously dude? You want to know what I watch? Hahahahah Why? So that you can criticize my news sources? Well then I'll tell you. I don't watch any news though I read articles by Fox News, CNN, guardians, etc. I read articles from Fox and CNN so that I can look at both perspectives and if any one of them lie then there's always a third party to verify it. Like for example when Fox lied about Quebec then CNN quickly spotted that and Fox apologized for it. Though sometimes I might be wrong but in Trump's case, we can easily see that Fox News and Breitbart is supporting him blindly. Faux News lied about Quebec mosque shooting and Breitbart's employer who was going to give his toxic speech in UC Berkeley turned out to be a pedophile. A person with that mind-set could only corrupt young people and yet when the protesters stopped his speech from happening then Trump threatened the University by saying he'll cut-off the funding. Do you think CNN covers Trump unbiased without holding back real news that would help Trump? Do you think CNN did not blindly support Hillary Clinton during the campaign? As for Berkeley: It was only cancelled because protesters were being violent and resorted to vandalism, so the event was cancelled due to security reason. Do you consider this violence and the losses of the owners of the vandalized objects acceptable because it damaged someone you politically disagree with? Or do you not? And who has the authority to decide what kind of speech is "toxic" or not without risk of inserting their own political agenda? The protest was nice and quiet until some people with black dress came and made it disastrous. Read this As for Hiliary, she might be a corrupted person but she was not a f*ckin Nazi. And I never said that CNN is a good news source. I also read from Fox News and I've already given you the reason as to why I do that. Btw any person could make out that Milo's speech would be toxic as he is supporting a racist leader. That is reasonable, I am OK with that even if I disagree with you on that. The last line however (bolded) is a different matter. That's an absurd absolute which is often a sign of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore do you think you have the qualifications to evaluate whether or not someone is racist without using false axioms (i.e. "it's obvious") and an argumentum ad populum (i.e. "A lot of people think he is racist, so he really must be racist")? Actually all Milo talks about are SJWs - I have watched a few of them. Have you even watched an appearence of Milo at a university other than cherrypicked, edited videos by people who are biased against him? During Trump's campaign, he said many despicable things about muslims. After he became the POTUS, he banned 7 muslim majority countries. Now I know Islam is not a race. But Trump is clearly acting like Hitler. He killed 30 Yemen civilians including children and said the mission was successful. Now if that isn't a racist than who is? And Milo was defending that same person and is a alt-right so yeah, he will obviously be despicable. No wonder he was a pedophile. Trump is despicable and his supporters are the same. They want to kill innocent people. Now, I don't belong to muslim community. But if I imagine myself living in USA (and being a muslim), the only things I can think of is people calling me terrorist or Trumpsters bullying me. The real terrorists in this world are Trumpsters. They are worse than filth. After Trump became the POTUS, more innocent muslims have died than white people and yet Trump keeps on calling muslims as terrorists and white people as angels. He even ignored the Quebec mosque shooting when the perperator was found out to be a white guy. But when it came to France museum attack by a muslim (in which no one died) he was quick to respond. im of the left and i say trump banned the worng nations id say a ban of Gualf states owuld have been better simple Why? So, that they could invade it afterwards? Like what they did with Iraq no im anti war but mos of the 9/11 hiakacer were saudi that is fact hell owuld also abn the zionists too but that just me USA needs oil, if they were to ban gulf countries then they'd have to invade it in order to take the oil or else US economy would decrease exponentially. Also, 9/11 was a plot by Zionists. Sorry, but I don't believe what media says. Read this |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:36 AM
#97
AnimeAdamOP said: swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. I don't know much about the story, but you know girls can hit puberty at age 8 or 9, right? Wtf? Hahahahha Seriously? Go study biology m8. They don't even have their periods when they are this old. |
Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
Feb 21, 2017 7:38 AM
#98
swirlydragon said: AnimeAdamOP said: swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. I don't know much about the story, but you know girls can hit puberty at age 8 or 9, right? Wtf? Hahahahha Seriously? Go study biology m8. They don't even have their periods when they are this old. This is funny. I'm a junior Microbiology major. Literally any google source will tell you this as well. |
Feb 21, 2017 7:39 AM
#99
swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. are you mentally handicapped? how can you not understand what your_source said: Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina. means. It's exactly what i wrote. He had sex with her when she was nine or ten years old while muhammed was 53. i really stop now... |
Feb 21, 2017 7:45 AM
#100
swirlydragon said: AnimeAdamOP said: swirlydragon said: Nigami_Shin said: swirlydragon said: Consummated means make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse. Read Also, the previous source I've provided clearly said that the person didn't have sex with the girl and the girl lived in her home. So yeah, the marriage was only cultural not biological. So first go read the previous source. The previous source is wikipedia. Also, consummated has many meanings so wikipedia even clarified it by saying the above things. let me break it down for you: muammed married aisha when she was 6. they had sex, consummated the marriage, when she was 9 or 10. what kind of mental gymnastic do you need to not consider that pedophilic and how can you think that anything you wrote proved your point? let's stop that. seems like arguing with you makes absolutely no sense That's false. Who told you that? Hahahahaha This story is as old as it gets. According to muslims, Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As for sex, it happened after she reached puberty. So, get your facts right, kid. I don't know much about the story, but you know girls can hit puberty at age 8 or 9, right? Wtf? Hahahahha Seriously? Go study biology m8. They don't even have their periods when they are this old. Girls typically hit puberty between 11-13yo. How is having sex with a 13yo okay? |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |