Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Was it wrong for Russell Brand to shag a 16 year old?

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours 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?

Darkness joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 50 seconds later[^] [v] #1,431,336

@OP

> Was it bad?

Yes.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,337

@previous (Darkness)
Why?

Darkness replied with this 3 hours 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 hours 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?

Darkness replied with this 3 hours 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 hours ago, 20 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,341

@1,431,339 (A)
That’s not what I said. Were you even listening?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,343

@previous (Darkness)
You listed reasons it would be bad for him, not her.

So yes, I listened.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours ago, 42 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,344

@previous (A)
How is that your takeaway from what I just said?

Darkness double-posted this 3 hours 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 hours ago, 26 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,346

@1,431,343 (A)
It's like talking to another Syntax.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,347

@previous (D)
If syntax doesn’t want to have sex with children I’ll take that as a compliment.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours 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.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours 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 hours 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?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours 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?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,353

@1,431,349 (Darkness)
I didn't make the law, but neither the US nor UK is considering lowering it.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours 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 hours 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.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours ago, 11 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,356

@1,431,353 (A)
If you’re standard of morality is the letter of the law then you have no morality.

Darkness double-posted this 3 hours 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 hours 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.

Darkness replied with this 3 hours 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.

Darkness double-posted this 3 hours 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!

Darkness triple-posted this 3 hours 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 hours 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 2 hours 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 44 minutes 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.

(Edited 6 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 40 minutes 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.

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 37 minutes 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.

Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 21 minutes 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.

(Edited 35 seconds later.)

:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.