Topic: Was it wrong for Russell Brand to shag a 16 year old?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #134,449
It was legal in the UK. It would have been legal if it happened in most of the US.
This is not about any actual rapes, as in nonconsensual encounters.
Was it bad?
This is not about any actual rapes, as in nonconsensual encounters.
Was it bad?
Darkness joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later[^] [v] #1,431,336
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,337
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,338
Like, okay, I’m in my early 20s I can’t stand 18 year olds. They’re terrible people, they’re all sociopaths, they don’t have empathy, they don’t have basic human respect, and I want nothing to do with them. If you can tolerate being around a teenager who isn’t biologically related to you, something’s up with you. Something’s not right upstairs.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,339
@previous (Darkness)
So he's the real victim, because he had to deal with a terrible sociopathic 16 year old?
So he's the real victim, because he had to deal with a terrible sociopathic 16 year old?
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,340
All I’m saying is there’s a reason why we used to draft teenagers and send them to die in wars. It’s not because we enjoy their company.
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,341
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,343
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,344
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,345
You must be even more fucked in the head than he is!
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,346
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,347
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,348
@1,431,344 (Darkness)
I just explained how it was my takeaway.
I'll tell you again: when you list reasons its bad for the man, the older party, you are making it sound like he's the victim.
If you thought she was a victim, you would list reasons she was harmed by it.
I just explained how it was my takeaway.
I'll tell you again: when you list reasons its bad for the man, the older party, you are making it sound like he's the victim.
If you thought she was a victim, you would list reasons she was harmed by it.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,349
First it’s "barely legal 18 year olds" then it’s "a 16 year old isn’t that bad" then it’s 14, then it’s 12, then it’s 10, then it’s 8, then it’s 6, then it’s 3, then it’s 1, and then you’re done.
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,350
@1,431,348 (A)
How did I make it sound like he’s the victim by saying he’s fucked in the head if he can stand to be around a teenager?
How did I make it sound like he’s the victim by saying he’s fucked in the head if he can stand to be around a teenager?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,351
@1,431,346 (D)
I'm doing that?
I don't remember Syntax, but did he calmly explain his position, and respond directly to the people who disagreed?
I'm doing that?
I don't remember Syntax, but did he calmly explain his position, and respond directly to the people who disagreed?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,353
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,354
I’m not a fan of gaslighting. If you think I agree with you, then you’re just some type of slow.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,355
@1,431,350 (Darkness)
I already said twice, but here's a third time: You listed reasons he would be impacted negatively.
I already said twice, but here's a third time: You listed reasons he would be impacted negatively.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,356
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,357
Everyone knows the government and politicians are all evil, that should never be your standard!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,358
@1,431,354 (Darkness)
It's not gaslighting to point out you actually did give reasons he would be negatively impacted. That did happen.
It's not agreeing with me, because I never said he was a victim. I don't believe he was a victim.
It's not gaslighting to point out you actually did give reasons he would be negatively impacted. That did happen.
It's not agreeing with me, because I never said he was a victim. I don't believe he was a victim.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,359
@1,431,355 (A)
> I already said twice, but here's a third time: You listed reasons he would be impacted negatively.
No I didn’t, I listed reasons why he would have to be fucked in the head to want to be with a teenager.
> I already said twice, but here's a third time: You listed reasons he would be impacted negatively.
No I didn’t, I listed reasons why he would have to be fucked in the head to want to be with a teenager.
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,360
@1,431,358 (A)
You are gaslighting me. I don’t agree with you and you’re pretending that I agree with you when I’m telling you to your face that I don’t agree with you. So fuck you!
You are gaslighting me. I don’t agree with you and you’re pretending that I agree with you when I’m telling you to your face that I don’t agree with you. So fuck you!
Darkness triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,361
You know what happens when a 16 year old gets pregnant? Hirohito. That’s how Hirohito was born. We don’t need more of that in our world, okay?
Darkness quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,362
And sometimes I assume, they’re good people. But you produce a Hirohito once, I take it the intelligent strategy is avoid what led up to that. It doesn’t always produce a Hirohito, a lot of children born to teenage moms are good people, one of them was a Hirohito. Humanity must stop risking creating another imperial Japan in the future. People like you are directly responsible for the Nanjing massacre!
Darkness quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,363
Like nigga teenagers don’t even like teenagers anymore, isn’t the teen pregnancy rate down at an all time low or something? Teenagers are sociopaths and they don’t even like teenagers, what kinda pedo freak likes teenagers?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,374
@1,431,360 (Darkness)
I don't believe he was a victim, so pointing out the reasons you gave for why he would be negatively impacted is not saying you agree with me.
I don't believe he was a victim, so pointing out the reasons you gave for why he would be negatively impacted is not saying you agree with me.
(Edited 6 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,375
@1,431,360 (Darkness)
Constantly arguing, never admitting when you make a mistake, accusing people of "gaslighting" you, and suggesting that it's misogyny to say men and women are different are all signs you have no Y chromosome.
Of course you didn't do all that in this thread, but it's a pattern in all the threads you are in.
Men don't talk this way, this all behavior specific to women.
Kook loves to spam threads to 100+ replies. Becky is Catholic. IDK who the hell you are, but you don't have a penis.
Constantly arguing, never admitting when you make a mistake, accusing people of "gaslighting" you, and suggesting that it's misogyny to say men and women are different are all signs you have no Y chromosome.
Of course you didn't do all that in this thread, but it's a pattern in all the threads you are in.
Men don't talk this way, this all behavior specific to women.
Kook loves to spam threads to 100+ replies. Becky is Catholic. IDK who the hell you are, but you don't have a penis.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,376
@1,431,360 (Darkness)
Giving the reasons he would be negatively impacted as a premise to the conclusion that he's fucked in the head doesn't change the fact that you gave reasons we would be negatively affected.
Saying "premise therefore conclusion" doesn't change the fact that you said premise.
Saying someone is fucked in the head for getting involved in something bad for themselves doesn't change the fact that you only gave reasons they would be harmed, and not the other party.
If I said someone is fucked in the head for stabbing themselves, I've still only stated that they have been harmed.
Giving the reasons he would be negatively impacted as a premise to the conclusion that he's fucked in the head doesn't change the fact that you gave reasons we would be negatively affected.
Saying "premise therefore conclusion" doesn't change the fact that you said premise.
Saying someone is fucked in the head for getting involved in something bad for themselves doesn't change the fact that you only gave reasons they would be harmed, and not the other party.
If I said someone is fucked in the head for stabbing themselves, I've still only stated that they have been harmed.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,377
@1,431,375 (A)
Almost forgot, the covert/subtextual communication style.
Men will speak overtly, saying what they mean, meaning what they say.
Women will imply everything (to avoid accountability), and respond to the other person by inference rather than addressing what actually said (under the assumption the other party also implies everything, and to strawman the other side when they fail to come up with a good response).
Men can just point out contradictions in what's been said to demonstrate the other side must be implying something. Or to just accept it as a win if an opponent never actually says the wrong, opposed idea ever. They don't need to use deniable communication styles.
This is why jupiter never stops strawmanning. Women are unable to use overt communication styles generally. There are very few exceptions.
Almost forgot, the covert/subtextual communication style.
Men will speak overtly, saying what they mean, meaning what they say.
Women will imply everything (to avoid accountability), and respond to the other person by inference rather than addressing what actually said (under the assumption the other party also implies everything, and to strawman the other side when they fail to come up with a good response).
Men can just point out contradictions in what's been said to demonstrate the other side must be implying something. Or to just accept it as a win if an opponent never actually says the wrong, opposed idea ever. They don't need to use deniable communication styles.
This is why jupiter never stops strawmanning. Women are unable to use overt communication styles generally. There are very few exceptions.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Green !!bO/s3MBcD joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 34 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,381
Yes. He could've got a milf.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,385
@previous (Green !!bO/s3MBcD)
I've analyzed your vocaroos and deduced you live somewhere in Britain.
I've analyzed your vocaroos and deduced you live somewhere in Britain.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,386
@1,431,381 (Green !!bO/s3MBcD)
I've analyzed your vocaroos and deduced you live somewhere in Britain.
I've analyzed your vocaroos and deduced you live somewhere in Britain.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,407
@1,431,375 (A)
Don’t say you’re not a real man if you don’t support pedophilia, you’re making us look bad.
Don’t say you’re not a real man if you don’t support pedophilia, you’re making us look bad.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,408
@1,431,349 (Darkness)
> First it’s "barely legal 18 year olds" then it’s "a 16 year old isn’t that bad" then it’s 14, then it’s 12, then it’s 10, then it’s 8, then it’s 6, then it’s 3, then it’s 1, and then you’re done.
Slippery slope. You need to take a basic logic class. Your arguments are a litany of logical fallacies.
> First it’s "barely legal 18 year olds" then it’s "a 16 year old isn’t that bad" then it’s 14, then it’s 12, then it’s 10, then it’s 8, then it’s 6, then it’s 3, then it’s 1, and then you’re done.
Slippery slope. You need to take a basic logic class. Your arguments are a litany of logical fallacies.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,411
@previous (G)
> > First it’s "barely legal 18 year olds" then it’s "a 16 year old isn’t that bad" then it’s 14, then it’s 12, then it’s 10, then it’s 8, then it’s 6, then it’s 3, then it’s 1, and then you’re done.
>
> Slippery slope. You need to take a basic logic class. Your arguments are a litany of logical fallacies.
Ooh, different IP address I see! Snazzy!
> > First it’s "barely legal 18 year olds" then it’s "a 16 year old isn’t that bad" then it’s 14, then it’s 12, then it’s 10, then it’s 8, then it’s 6, then it’s 3, then it’s 1, and then you’re done.
>
> Slippery slope. You need to take a basic logic class. Your arguments are a litany of logical fallacies.
Ooh, different IP address I see! Snazzy!
Dice joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,413
No big deal. I fucked her.Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 28 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,423
How old was he? 30. Let's be honest here. 16 year olds are pretty childish. They giggle, they play Roblox, they draw cats on pieces of paper and they fuck 17 year olds. Children who fuck 30 year olds are one step away from either being crazy or are one step away from blackmailing someone.
I hope she's alright. She's probably embarrassed. Once he goes to prison for rape I don't want to hear his name again.
I hope she's alright. She's probably embarrassed. Once he goes to prison for rape I don't want to hear his name again.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,425
@previous (H)
> How old was he? 30. Let's be honest here. 16 year olds are pretty childish. They giggle, they play Roblox, they draw cats on pieces of paper and they fuck 17 year olds. Children who fuck 30 year olds are one step away from either being crazy or are one step away from blackmailing someone.
>
> I hope she's alright. She's probably embarrassed. Once he goes to prison for rape I don't want to hear his name again.
https://youtu.be/PrxzS7ooKXQ
> How old was he? 30. Let's be honest here. 16 year olds are pretty childish. They giggle, they play Roblox, they draw cats on pieces of paper and they fuck 17 year olds. Children who fuck 30 year olds are one step away from either being crazy or are one step away from blackmailing someone.
>
> I hope she's alright. She's probably embarrassed. Once he goes to prison for rape I don't want to hear his name again.
https://youtu.be/PrxzS7ooKXQ
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,427
"We’re going out on a date, on a straight guy date."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,442
@1,431,423 (H)
If god can impregnate a 14 year old, Russell Brand can have a consenting, legal relationship with a 16 year old WOMAN.
If god can impregnate a 14 year old, Russell Brand can have a consenting, legal relationship with a 16 year old WOMAN.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,446
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,447
Of course, people will claim Mary was a particular age because they’ll say it was common to have children at that age back then, but if you ask them for evidence from the Bible that Mary got pregnant at that particular age, it isn’t there.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,448
@1,431,446 (Darkness)
Impregnating a virgin doesn't make statutory rape any better, but you can try that strategy in a court pervert.
Impregnating a virgin doesn't make statutory rape any better, but you can try that strategy in a court pervert.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,449
Also notice how you’re doing the slippery slope, I said you would go from 16 to 14, and look what you did.
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,450
Darkness triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,451
Wanting to justify adults having sex with teenagers so bad you criticize God is crazy though.
Darkness quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,452
For the record, not saying different people can’t have different opinions on these things, but that’s not a great reason.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,453
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,454
@1,431,451 (Darkness)
Teenagers can be adults themselves.
Two 18 year olds having sex can be "an adult having sex with a teenager".
Teenagers can be adults themselves.
Two 18 year olds having sex can be "an adult having sex with a teenager".
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,456
@previous (A)
That’s not what you’re talking about, what you’re talking about is a 30 year old having sex with a 16 year old.
That’s not what you’re talking about, what you’re talking about is a 30 year old having sex with a 16 year old.
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,457
@1,431,453 (A)
> Where does it say god likes milfs?
Mary never had sex. That’s why she’s called the Virgin Mary, she got pregnant without having sex. The Bible doesn’t say that God had sex with Mary or that God feels sexual attraction, that’s a complete misreading of the Bible.
> Where does it say god likes milfs?
Mary never had sex. That’s why she’s called the Virgin Mary, she got pregnant without having sex. The Bible doesn’t say that God had sex with Mary or that God feels sexual attraction, that’s a complete misreading of the Bible.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,459
@previous (J)
I never even used the word sex, and this is what I'm talking about when I say you're using feminine covert communication techniques.
Stop asking me to explain the strawmen you made up nigger.
I never even used the word sex, and this is what I'm talking about when I say you're using feminine covert communication techniques.
Stop asking me to explain the strawmen you made up nigger.
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,460
In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex because Mary was born without sin and she and Jesus are the only two humans who never sinned or acted against the will of God. Protestants reject this, but originally, in Catholicism, the view is that Mary was born completely without human imperfections.
Darkness double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,461
@1,431,459 (A)
> Stop asking me to explain the strawmen you made up nigger.
Being a racist pedophile ain’t better than being a pedophile.
> Stop asking me to explain the strawmen you made up nigger.
Being a racist pedophile ain’t better than being a pedophile.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,470
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
"Yeah I knocked up a teenager but it was her first time and she was totally pure and innocent so it's OK".
creep.
"Yeah I knocked up a teenager but it was her first time and she was totally pure and innocent so it's OK".
creep.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Darkness replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,476
@previous (A)
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex because Mary was born without sin and she and Jesus are the only two humans who never sinned or acted against the will of God. Protestants reject this, but originally, in Catholicism, the view is that Mary was born completely without human imperfections.
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex because Mary was born without sin and she and Jesus are the only two humans who never sinned or acted against the will of God.
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> Mary had Jesus without having sex
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex because Mary was born without sin and she and Jesus are the only two humans who never sinned or acted against the will of God. Protestants reject this, but originally, in Catholicism, the view is that Mary was born completely without human imperfections.
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex because Mary was born without sin and she and Jesus are the only two humans who never sinned or acted against the will of God.
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> In Catholicism, the original view is that Mary had Jesus without having sex
@1,431,460 (Darkness)
> Mary had Jesus without having sex
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,516
@OP
> It was legal in the UK. It would have been legal if it happened in most of the US.
>
> This is not about any actual rapes, as in nonconsensual encounters.
>
> Was it bad?
not if its legal.
> It was legal in the UK. It would have been legal if it happened in most of the US.
>
> This is not about any actual rapes, as in nonconsensual encounters.
>
> Was it bad?
not if its legal.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 57 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,523
@1,431,347 (Darkness)
> If syntax doesn’t want to have sex with children I’ll take that as a compliment.
Fact is Syntax did have sex with a young teen cousin. Both about the same age.
@1,431,476 (Darkness)
A reminder. Given mom was still a virgin, Jesus had to bust through Moms hymen in order to exit.
Strange how what ended up as a Ghost, has credit for youngest to take the virginity of a woman.
> If syntax doesn’t want to have sex with children I’ll take that as a compliment.
Fact is Syntax did have sex with a young teen cousin. Both about the same age.
@1,431,476 (Darkness)
A reminder. Given mom was still a virgin, Jesus had to bust through Moms hymen in order to exit.
Strange how what ended up as a Ghost, has credit for youngest to take the virginity of a woman.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,549
@previous (L)
> A reminder. Given mom was still a virgin, Jesus had to bust through Moms hymen in order to exit.
lmao
> A reminder. Given mom was still a virgin, Jesus had to bust through Moms hymen in order to exit.
lmao
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,550
Pedo thread
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,571
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,575
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,576
JD Vance is subhuman