|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jul 18, 2015 15:21:22 GMT
I'll leave it there and let you go back to your perfect world you live in.I suspect that you've been traumatised yourself by some of the bollocks you continue to write. Think that is probably for the best mate. You do seem a bit out of your depth. Out your depth says the bloke who doesn't know who Peter Fox is(rofl)
|
|
|
Post by bmstoke on Jul 18, 2015 15:21:39 GMT
Why is someone who doesn't know who Peter Fox is posting on a Stoke message board? I was born in 1987. I will remember to ask your permission before posting on here in future. History not your strong point then.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 15:23:36 GMT
How does it make a difference? Scenario one: This guy is innocent, the glove incident never happened. In which case, a load of people on this thread are providing apologetics for sexual abuse they wrongly assumed had probably taken place. Scenario two: This guy is guilty, glove incident did take place. In which case, a load of people on this thread are providing apologetics for sexual abuse which did in fact take place. In both scenarios they are apologists for sexual abuse. Are you reading the same thread as me? Don't pretend you're stupid. The other guy I was arguing with could pretend he didn't understand the point I was making, because he genuinely was stupid, but that is obviously not the case with you. Someone makes a counter-argument which cancels out a point you make. Rather than concede or come up with a convincing counter-argument of your own, your simply pretend you don't understand their point. Gets you off the hook. You are doing the same thing with PotterLog. You have so much pride that you are incapable of ever being seen to lose and argument with anyone, so you just pretend you don't understand what they are saying.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 15:25:04 GMT
I was born in 1987. I will remember to ask your permission before posting on here in future. That explains it all for me Yeah, being born in the wrong year clearly invalidates everything I said.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 18, 2015 15:27:25 GMT
I've already answered them in bold above. You clearly haven't afforded me the courtesy of reading them and continued with your babble in the meantime. Never mind. Look, I'm not doing this to take the piss. Let's just take the first of my questions, which related to backing up your claim of the OP "using posters as pawns" or manipulating them. Your answer was... OK so why doesn't he state at what angle he's coming at it from? Who he is representing? If I do remember anything will I have to go to court? What if remember something but also remember context will that be relevant?In what way does that answer my question? It doesn't even attempt to do so, it's just a list of other vaguely related, tangential questions about the details of someone becoming involved. You continue in the same vein for the other two questions. Feel free to set me straight but it looks pretty much like you're just flinging accusations around with nothing to back them up. It's pretty obvious why they are fucking pawns isn't it. He is asking them if they remember an interview and not giving them any insight into the possible ramifications. He is casually asking them to be a witness to a serious offence without any concern for their situation. I'd call that being a pawn, you probably call it standard legal practice.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 18, 2015 15:28:56 GMT
Are you reading the same thread as me? Don't pretend you're stupid. The other guy I was arguing with could pretend he didn't understand the point I was making, because he genuinely was stupid, but that is obviously not the case with you. Someone makes a counter-argument which cancels out a point you make. Rather than concede or come up with a convincing counter-argument of your own, your simply pretend you don't understand their point. Gets you off the hook. You are doing the same thing with PotterLog. You have so much pride that you are incapable of ever being seen to lose and argument with anyone, so you just pretend you don't understand what they are saying. Never mind your point scoring anus juice, you are accusing people people of the serious offence of condoning sexual assault. At least being forth the specific evidence of this rather than trying tar a load of Stoke fans with your ludicrous fucking smears.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 15:29:50 GMT
I was born in 1987. I will remember to ask your permission before posting on here in future. History not your strong point then. Feel free to disagree with any of the points I have raised. I can't see how me not being around when this guy was playing makes any difference really, accept making me less biased that some people on here maybe.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 15:37:07 GMT
Don't pretend you're stupid. The other guy I was arguing with could pretend he didn't understand the point I was making, because he genuinely was stupid, but that is obviously not the case with you. Someone makes a counter-argument which cancels out a point you make. Rather than concede or come up with a convincing counter-argument of your own, your simply pretend you don't understand their point. Gets you off the hook. You are doing the same thing with PotterLog. You have so much pride that you are incapable of ever being seen to lose and argument with anyone, so you just pretend you don't understand what they are saying. Never mind your point scoring anus juice, you are accusing people people of the serious offence of condoning sexual assault. At least being forth the specific evidence of this rather than trying tar a load of Stoke fans with your ludicrous fucking smears. I actually didn't say they were condoning it, I said they were providing apologetics for it, although I accept not much difference between the two. This thread is the evidence, assuming you have read it. I really can't be arsed to go through it all again, so lets just start with my recent exchange with Muttley. He apparently sees no difference between a doctor carrying out a rectal examination and a group of fully grown men holding down a sixteen year-old boy and forcibly inserting a finger covered in deep heat up that person's arse. I think most reasonable people would draw similar conclusions to those that I have drawn from this. I'll confess to some point scoring anus juice as an occasional indulgence of mine. I'm careful not to engage in it too often unless it becomes a life-consuming passion like it clearly is for you.
|
|
|
Post by bmstoke on Jul 18, 2015 15:37:38 GMT
History not your strong point then. Feel free to disagree with any of the points I have raised. I can't see how me not being around when this guy was playing makes any difference really, accept making me less biased that some people on here maybe. I really can't be bothered, he didn't stick his fingers up my arse so I don't care.
|
|
bandit
Academy Starlet
Posts: 221
|
Post by bandit on Jul 18, 2015 15:39:18 GMT
For the younger posters on here back in the 60s and 70s the biggest TV show on was Coronation Street who had a bloke called Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) who was one there leading male actors, and by the look of it was probably a massive icon for a LOT OF OUR OLDER POSTERS because we all know where he liked to put his fingers when visiting the local swimming pool.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 18, 2015 15:43:55 GMT
I'm careful not to engage in it too often unless it becomes a life-consuming passion like it clearly is for you. Don't confuse life consuming passion with lots of my time on my hands at work and grave loss of interest in my job
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 15:45:48 GMT
Don't confuse life consuming passion with lots of my time on my hands at work and grave loss of interest in my job Fair enough
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jul 18, 2015 15:46:03 GMT
Feel free to disagree with any of the points I have raised. I can't see how me not being around when this guy was playing makes any difference really, accept making me less biased that some people on here maybe. I really can't be bothered, he didn't stick his fingers up my arse so I don't care. I no longer think it's s discussion about Peter Fox mate I have no idea wether he did it or not .....the points many are pointing out is the bizarre defending of this sort of action in the name of it being " a bit of a laugh " and it was the don't thing back then I'm nearly 50 and have never come across it and I ask any of those defending it what they would do if their 16/17 year old apprentice lad came home on Monday and said it had happened to them
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jul 18, 2015 15:48:11 GMT
Never mind your point scoring anus juice, you are accusing people people of the serious offence of condoning sexual assault. At least being forth the specific evidence of this rather than trying tar a load of Stoke fans with your ludicrous fucking smears. I actually didn't say they were condoning it, I said they were providing apologetics for it, although I accept not much difference between the two. This thread is the evidence, assuming you have read it. I really can't be arsed to go through it all again, so lets just start with my recent exchange with Muttley. He apparently sees no difference between a doctor carrying out a rectal examination and a group of fully grown men holding down a sixteen year-old boy and forcibly inserting a finger covered in deep heat up that person's arse. I think most reasonable people would draw similar conclusions to those that I have drawn from this. I'll confess to some point scoring anus juice as an occasional indulgence of mine. I'm careful not to engage in it too often unless it becomes a life-consuming passion like it clearly is for you. I think you'll find it was posed as a question [if you can read] about the doctor.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 18, 2015 15:53:47 GMT
For the younger posters on here back in the 60s and 70s the biggest TV show on was Coronation Street who had a bloke called Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) who was one there leading male actors, and by the look of it was probably a massive icon for a LOT OF OUR OLDER POSTERS because we all know where he liked to put his fingers when visiting the local swimming pool. Only on the Oatcake can an association be made between Peter Fox and Len Fairclough
|
|
bandit
Academy Starlet
Posts: 221
|
Post by bandit on Jul 18, 2015 16:09:29 GMT
For the younger posters on here back in the 60s and 70s the biggest TV show on was Coronation Street who had a bloke called Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) who was one there leading male actors, and by the look of it was probably a massive icon for a LOT OF OUR OLDER POSTERS because we all know where he liked to put his fingers when visiting the local swimming pool. Only on the Oatcake can an association be made between Peter Fox and Len Fairclough The only differance is Adamson forgot to use his gloves
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 18, 2015 16:18:44 GMT
I really can't be bothered, he didn't stick his fingers up my arse so I don't care. I no longer think it's s discussion about Peter Fox mate I have no idea wether he did it or not .....the points many are pointing out is the bizarre defending of this sort of action in the name of it being " a bit of a laugh " and it was the don't thing back then I'm nearly 50 and have never come across it and I ask any of those defending it what they would do if their 16/17 year old apprentice lad came home on Monday and said it had happened to them Back in the day the old man would come home from the pub and belt the old lady for no reason who would then get up the next day with his breakfast on the table as if nothing happened, you stepped out of line in primary school you got the slipper at high school the cane you did something wrong at home you'd get a slap round the face or if a bit more serious the old mans pit belt would come out. These things happened that is a fact whether they were right or wrong it was accepted they don't happen any more, corporal punishment has been abolished you hit the missus she's off you hit the kids social services are on your case. If this event took place it was abuse i personally wouldn't call it sexual abuse as that would suggest sexual gratification which if happened i don't think it was just a part of the way things were back then in that environment of initiation or stepping out line or just being a cheeky twat which i may have been a bit guilty of. What ever stance you have on it, it's was fact that it happened and was accepted as part of life rightly or wrongly what is so hard to understand? So of course if my son who ironically will be starting an apprenticeship in September came home with such an accusation your damm right i'd be fuming as that sort of behaviour is not tolerated "NOW" as it was back then.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jul 18, 2015 16:23:04 GMT
I no longer think it's s discussion about Peter Fox mate I have no idea wether he did it or not .....the points many are pointing out is the bizarre defending of this sort of action in the name of it being " a bit of a laugh " and it was the don't thing back then I'm nearly 50 and have never come across it and I ask any of those defending it what they would do if their 16/17 year old apprentice lad came home on Monday and said it had happened to them Back in the day the old man would come home from the pub and belt the old lady for no reason who would then get up the next day with his breakfast on the table as if nothing happened, you stepped out of line in primary school you got the slipper at high school the cane you did something wrong at home you'd get a slap round the face or if a bit more serious the old mans pit belt would come out. These things happened that is a fact whether they were right or wrong it was accepted they don't happen any more, corporal punishment has been abolished you hit the missus she's off you hit the kids social services are on your case. If this event took place it was abuse i personally wouldn't call it sexual abuse as that would suggest sexual gratification which if happened i don't think it was just a part of the way things were back then in that environment of initiation or stepping out line or just being a cheeky twat which i may have been a bit guilty of. What ever stance you have on it, it's was fact that it happened and was accepted as part of life rightly or wrongly what is so hard to understand? So of course if my son who ironically will be starting an apprenticeship in September came home with such an accusation your damm right i'd be fuming as that sort of behaviour is not tolerated "NOW" as it was back then. Fair points mate I just don't get why somebody would want to stick their finger up a young lads arse
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jul 18, 2015 16:23:20 GMT
I no longer think it's s discussion about Peter Fox mate I have no idea wether he did it or not .....the points many are pointing out is the bizarre defending of this sort of action in the name of it being " a bit of a laugh " and it was the don't thing back then I'm nearly 50 and have never come across it and I ask any of those defending it what they would do if their 16/17 year old apprentice lad came home on Monday and said it had happened to them Back in the day the old man would come home from the pub and belt the old lady for no reason who would then get up the next day with his breakfast on the table as if nothing happened, you stepped out of line in primary school you got the slipper at high school the cane you did something wrong at home you'd get a slap round the face or if a bit more serious the old mans pit belt would come out. These things happened that is a fact whether they were right or wrong it was accepted they don't happen any more, corporal punishment has been abolished you hit the missus she's off you hit the kids social services are on your case. If this event took place it was abuse i personally wouldn't call it sexual abuse as that would suggest sexual gratification which if happened i don't think it was just a part of the way things were back then in that environment of initiation or stepping out line or just being a cheeky twat which i may have been a bit guilty of. What ever stance you have on it, it's was fact that it happened and was accepted as part of life rightly or wrongly what is so hard to understand? So of course if my son who ironically will be starting an apprenticeship in September came home with such an accusation your damm right i'd be fuming as that sort of behaviour is not tolerated "NOW" as it was back then. Couldn't have put it better mesen
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jul 18, 2015 17:09:54 GMT
Some people seem to have forgotten that right/good and wrong/bad are nothing more than "I like/agree with that" and "I dislike/don't agree with that" and laws are generally fitted around the collective mass of societies "I like that" and "I don't like that".
Even though Philm seems to be putting it out there that there's a generation of apologists for those who are older than himself, I'm a similar age (1988, although I did know who Peter Fox was) and I don't think that even if this did happen there should be much that comes from it. Not so much workplace but anywhere there's a group of lads and things invariably happen that would probably be illegal but never get mentioned. Legally there is nothing different and more abusive than what allegedly happened in the dressing room than the first time your old man buys you an underage pint.
In fact, given the consequence of alcohol vs the consequence of a bit of deep heat up the arse odds are anyone who's old man bought them a pint underage would've been doing the lesser of two evils if he'd reached for the goalkeeping glove and a jar of deep heat.
It's not trying to be controversial or edgy, when you actually consider what it was, unless Peter Fox had his shorts around his ankles and was using his free hand to crack one out it wasn't particularly sexual.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 17:29:53 GMT
I actually didn't say they were condoning it, I said they were providing apologetics for it, although I accept not much difference between the two. This thread is the evidence, assuming you have read it. I really can't be arsed to go through it all again, so lets just start with my recent exchange with Muttley. He apparently sees no difference between a doctor carrying out a rectal examination and a group of fully grown men holding down a sixteen year-old boy and forcibly inserting a finger covered in deep heat up that person's arse. I think most reasonable people would draw similar conclusions to those that I have drawn from this. I'll confess to some point scoring anus juice as an occasional indulgence of mine. I'm careful not to engage in it too often unless it becomes a life-consuming passion like it clearly is for you. I think you'll find it was posed as a question [if you can read] about the doctor. I thought you said you would ''leave it there''? Yes you did pose it as a question. The question was what is the difference between a medical examination and a group of fully grown men forcibly restraining a sixteen year-old lad and inserting a finger up his arse against his will? Most sane people could answer that question quite easily... there is a massive difference. The context in which you asked this question made clear the intended implication, which was a moral equivalence between a medical examination and sexual abuse. I asked you to clarify, I gave you the opportunity to answer your own question but you backed down saying you would ''leave it there'' because, like I said, you are out of your depth. There's nothing I can really add to that. Anyone reading this who is not a complete tool will draw the exact same conclusions I did originally.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 17:33:30 GMT
Some people seem to have forgotten that right/good and wrong/bad are nothing more than "I like/agree with that" and "I dislike/don't agree with that" and laws are generally fitted around the collective mass of societies "I like that" and "I don't like that". Even though Philm seems to be putting it out there that there's a generation of apologists for those who are older than himself, I'm a similar age (1988, although I did know who Peter Fox was) and I don't think that even if this did happen there should be much that comes from it. Not so much workplace but anywhere there's a group of lads and things invariably happen that would probably be illegal but never get mentioned. Legally there is nothing different and more abusive than what allegedly happened in the dressing room than the first time your old man buys you an underage pint. In fact, given the consequence of alcohol vs the consequence of a bit of deep heat up the arse odds are anyone who's old man bought them a pint underage would've been doing the lesser of two evils if he'd reached for the goalkeeping glove and a jar of deep heat. It's not trying to be controversial or edgy, when you actually consider what it was, unless Peter Fox had his shorts around his ankles and was using his free hand to crack one out it wasn't particularly sexual. Well that is an interesting father-son relationship you must have had then. Dad: Fancy going down the pub for a pint? Son: I'd much rather you put some deep heat in my rectum. Sound familiar to anyone? It's not edgy. It's just moronic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 17:36:06 GMT
I struggle to believe there is a single poster on this forum who condones or encourages sexual abuse There's some dicks on this board, and some people whose opinions I don't share but let's not exaggerate what's said...
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jul 18, 2015 17:37:59 GMT
I think you'll find it was posed as a question [if you can read] about the doctor. I thought you said you would ''leave it there''? Yes you did pose it as a question. The question was what is the difference between a medical examination and a group of fully grown men forcibly restraining a sixteen year-old lad and inserting a finger up his arse against his will? Most sane people could answer that question quite easily... there is a massive difference. The context in which you asked this question made clear the intended implication, which was a moral equivalence between a medical examination and sexual abuse. I asked you to clarify, I gave you the opportunity to answer your own question but you backed down saying you would ''leave it there'' because, like I said, you are out of your depth. There's nothing I can really add to that. Anyone reading this who is not a complete tool will draw the exact same conclusions I did originally. " Out of your depth"you really are one cock sure arrogant prick i know that for a 28 year old lad.I bet your a barrel of laughs at work and a night out
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 17:42:22 GMT
my main issue isn't wehther or not it did or didn't happen (no-one will ever 100% know as it's one person's word from 30 years ago against someone else's from 30 years ago). my issue is the grotty solicitors and "ambulance chasing...give me a buck for something that happened decades ago but didn't do anything about at the time and now want something and i want it now" freeloaders that tend to overload society nowadays.
i wonder if these same solicitors would happily take on a "My word against his for something that happened decades ago" case if the victim was Mr. J Public who suffered some similar fate at the hands of general members of the public whilst on his stag night?
or (because it wouldn't involve a large, well-known company with famous people attached to it so their company wouldn't get the same media coverage and kudos for winning the case) would they shy away? hmmmm, wonder what the answer to that one is!
scum and parasites the lot of them!! and to come onto a board in the vain hope of finding hearsay that someone might remember a bit of from over 20 years ago on the radio and NOT declare their personal interest in the case or the consequences upon YOU if you do remember anything is an absolute fucking disgrace! for admin to have allowed this with NO knowledge of who they are, what they're asking for and not having the courtesy to explain to the board what the full ramifications for the posters who DO contact them are is absolutely 100% fucking disgraceful on their part!!!!
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jul 18, 2015 17:46:33 GMT
Some people seem to have forgotten that right/good and wrong/bad are nothing more than "I like/agree with that" and "I dislike/don't agree with that" and laws are generally fitted around the collective mass of societies "I like that" and "I don't like that". Even though Philm seems to be putting it out there that there's a generation of apologists for those who are older than himself, I'm a similar age (1988, although I did know who Peter Fox was) and I don't think that even if this did happen there should be much that comes from it. Not so much workplace but anywhere there's a group of lads and things invariably happen that would probably be illegal but never get mentioned. Legally there is nothing different and more abusive than what allegedly happened in the dressing room than the first time your old man buys you an underage pint. In fact, given the consequence of alcohol vs the consequence of a bit of deep heat up the arse odds are anyone who's old man bought them a pint underage would've been doing the lesser of two evils if he'd reached for the goalkeeping glove and a jar of deep heat. It's not trying to be controversial or edgy, when you actually consider what it was, unless Peter Fox had his shorts around his ankles and was using his free hand to crack one out it wasn't particularly sexual. Well that is an interesting father-son relationship you must have had then. Dad: Fancy going down the pub for a pint? Son: I'd much rather you put some deep heat in my rectum. Sound familiar to anyone? It's not edgy. It's just moronic. Well, while I appreciate your attempt to misconstrue my words and to trivialise the point to something that suits your own needs it's not what I said and you failed to address any point I made. I'm not mad, or even offended, if you can't argue something on the merits of its points then its best to just try and discredit it any way you can. I made a point that right/wrong and legal/illegal are two very different things. I then pointed out that illegal is illegal irrespective of what it is. Finally I pointed out that looking at a persons health, the damages and possible consequences of alcohol (such as leading to longer term problems like alcoholism) tends to be worse than a bit of deep heat on sensitive skin. 3 points there philm, which of those points is so moronic? Please enlighten me, I am just a humble peon wishing to learn from your font of knowledge. If it helps you out any I will concede that perhaps I've lived such a sheltered life that I've never come across the people who are addicted to rubbing deep heat around their eyes/nose, under their armpits, over their cocks and around their arses.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 19:23:44 GMT
I thought you said you would ''leave it there''? Yes you did pose it as a question. The question was what is the difference between a medical examination and a group of fully grown men forcibly restraining a sixteen year-old lad and inserting a finger up his arse against his will? Most sane people could answer that question quite easily... there is a massive difference. The context in which you asked this question made clear the intended implication, which was a moral equivalence between a medical examination and sexual abuse. I asked you to clarify, I gave you the opportunity to answer your own question but you backed down saying you would ''leave it there'' because, like I said, you are out of your depth. There's nothing I can really add to that. Anyone reading this who is not a complete tool will draw the exact same conclusions I did originally. " Out of your depth"you really are one cock sure arrogant prick i know that for a 28 year old lad.I bet your a barrel of laughs at work and a night out If by arrogant you mean to suggest I think I a more intelligent than you then I am guilty as charged. I'm sorry about that, but it seems pointless pretending otherwise. This is an internet messageboard, where people freely trade insults. In an environment where people think molestation is nothing more than ''banter'' and on a thread full of rapey jokes I didn't think me calling you a bit stupid would make you so precious. The reason I said you were out of your depth is fairly straightforward: I took your comments as an attempt to imply a moral equivalence between a medical examination and sexual abuse. You have had plenty of opportunities to answer the hypothetical question you originally posed and to correct my interpretation of the meaning you intended, but have failed to take that opportunity. I can only conclude you are either incapable of doing so or that you have realised any attempt to spell out the logic of your argument would make you look even more stupid. I don't know anything about you and you don't know anything about me. Everything I have said to you has been based on quite specific comments you have made in a discussion about abuse/bullying/calling what you will. In contrast, you cannot actually argue with anything I have written on here, so you have to come up with stuff like ''I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out'' or whatever. It doesn't really make a difference what I am like on a night out because it is not relevant to what we are discussing here. Unless you can explain why it you find it necessary to draw a comparison between a medical examination and a group of men molesting and abusing a 16 year-old boy then it is pointless me conversing with you. I don't expect you to reply with anything that is relevant to what we were discussing and I doubt you will find some other smiley that fully encapsulates the complexity and nuance of your point of view. So like you said, I will it there.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jul 18, 2015 19:55:17 GMT
Well that is an interesting father-son relationship you must have had then. Dad: Fancy going down the pub for a pint? Son: I'd much rather you put some deep heat in my rectum. Sound familiar to anyone? It's not edgy. It's just moronic. Well, while I appreciate your attempt to misconstrue my words and to trivialise the point to something that suits your own needs it's not what I said and you failed to address any point I made. I'm not mad, or even offended if you can't argue something on the merits of its points then its best to just try and discredit it any way you can. I made a point that right/wrong and legal/illegal are two very different things. I then pointed out that illegal is illegal irrespective of what it is. Finally I pointed out that looking at a persons health, the damages and possible consequences of alcohol (such as leading to longer term problems like alcoholism) tends to be worse than a bit of deep heat on sensitive skin. 3 points there philm, which of those points is so moronic? Please enlighten me, I am just a humble peon wishing to learn from your font of knowledge. If it helps you out any I will concede that perhaps I've lived such a sheltered life that I've never come across the people who are addicted to rubbing deep heat around their eyes/nose, under their armpits, over their cocks and around their arses. I'll respond to your three points seeing as you are specifically asking me to do so but I was not intending to waste quite so much time debating this with people so after this post I am done (although I can't promise you won't successfully bait me into responding again). I didn't say all three of your points were moronic. I addressed only one of your points, the one which is indeed moronic. 1) I agree what is morally right and what is legally right are two different things. It's a fairly trivial point though. I didn't respond to this point because it is not relevant to anything I have written on here, nor is it relevant to the ''glove incident''. It makes no difference to the case in question because forcibly sticking your finger up someone's arse is both legally wrong and morally wrong. 2) Illegal is illegal irrespective of what it is. Yeah I agree, no argument there. 3) Here is where your argument is moronic. Firstly, we are not talking about ''a bit of deep heat on sensitive skin''. We are talking about a group of fully grown men, forcibly restraining a 16 year-old boy against his will, and inserting a finger covered in deep heat inside his rectum. Secondly, you are suggesting a moral equivalence between that - which would be regarded by most people, both legally and morally speaking, as a disgusting act of abuse - and going for a pint with your Dad when you are underage? I stand by what I said. That is genuinely moronic. Feel free to go and check with other people. Maybe ask your Dad? Maybe ask some of your friends whether or not they think the two are the same? I seriously doubt anyone will agree with you and I am not saying that because I ''don't get out much'' or because I have a ''boring life''. I suspect if you voiced such opinions publicly you would get some very strange looks. Thirdly, you go even further and suggest a bit of underage drinking is actually worse because of the harm is causes. My parents supplied me with alcohol when I was underage. Probably a bad idea yes, but in no way is it comparable to someone forcibly shoving their finger inside my rectum. Going for a pint with your Dad when you are underage does not make you an alcoholic, that is just naive. I wouldn't usually mention this on an internet message board but seeing as it's pretty much anonymous and its relevant to what we are discussing, I should say that I am in a good position to know. I am a recovered alcoholic myself and I have met a lot of alcoholics, none of whom have ever reported their Dad buying them a drink when they were underage as being in anyway responsible for the problems they subsequently developed. To go back to my original point... I am genuinely slightly disturbed and ashamed that so many people feel the need to provide apologetics for an extreme instance of bullying and an act that most would regard as sexual abuse. I get that the moral climate was slightly different, but we are talking about something that happened in living memory for most people on here. It is clear from the comments made by people like PotterLog and Werrington on this thread that not everyone regarded this sort of shite as acceptable. Perhaps if the rest of you - or people in general - had the same good sense and courage that they did to know right from wrong then this sort of abuse would not have been quite so widespread.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Jul 18, 2015 20:19:14 GMT
" Out of your depth"you really are one cock sure arrogant prick i know that for a 28 year old lad.I bet your a barrel of laughs at work and a night out If by arrogant you mean to suggest I think I a more intelligent than you then I am guilty as charged. I'm sorry about that, but it seems pointless pretending otherwise. This is an internet messageboard, where people freely trade insults. In an environment where people think molestation is nothing more than ''banter'' and on a thread full of rapey jokes I didn't think me calling you a bit stupid would make you so precious. The reason I said you were out of your depth is fairly straightforward: I took your comments as an attempt to imply a moral equivalence between a medical examination and sexual abuse. You have had plenty of opportunities to answer the hypothetical question you originally posed and to correct my interpretation of the meaning you intended, but have failed to take that opportunity. I can only conclude you are either incapable of doing so or that you have realised any attempt to spell out the logic of your argument would make you look even more stupid. I don't know anything about you and you don't know anything about me. Everything I have said to you has been based on quite specific comments you have made in a discussion about abuse/bullying/calling what you will. In contrast, you cannot actually argue with anything I have written on here, so you have to come up with stuff like ''I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out'' or whatever. It doesn't really make a difference what I am like on a night out because it is not relevant to what we are discussing here. Unless you can explain why it you find it necessary to draw a comparison between a medical examination and a group of men molesting and abusing a 16 year-old boy then it is pointless me conversing with you. I don't expect you to reply with anything that is relevant to what we were discussing and I doubt you will find some other smiley that fully encapsulates the complexity and nuance of your point of view. So like you said, I will it there. Although I'm firmly on the side of 'gloves up arse unacceptable in any era' side of the debate....
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 18, 2015 20:36:20 GMT
Well, while I appreciate your attempt to misconstrue my words and to trivialise the point to something that suits your own needs it's not what I said and you failed to address any point I made. I'm not mad, or even offended if you can't argue something on the merits of its points then its best to just try and discredit it any way you can. I made a point that right/wrong and legal/illegal are two very different things. I then pointed out that illegal is illegal irrespective of what it is. Finally I pointed out that looking at a persons health, the damages and possible consequences of alcohol (such as leading to longer term problems like alcoholism) tends to be worse than a bit of deep heat on sensitive skin. 3 points there philm, which of those points is so moronic? Please enlighten me, I am just a humble peon wishing to learn from your font of knowledge. If it helps you out any I will concede that perhaps I've lived such a sheltered life that I've never come across the people who are addicted to rubbing deep heat around their eyes/nose, under their armpits, over their cocks and around their arses. I'll respond to your three points seeing as you are specifically asking me to do so but I was not intending to waste quite so much time debating this with people so after this post I am done (although I can't promise you won't successfully bait me into responding again). I didn't say all three of your points were moronic. I addressed only one of your points, the one which is indeed moronic. 1) I agree what is morally right and what is legally right are two different things. It's a fairly trivial point though. I didn't respond to this point because it is not relevant to anything I have written on here, nor is it relevant to the ''glove incident''. It makes no difference to the case in question because forcibly sticking your finger up someone's arse is both legally wrong and morally wrong. 2) Illegal is illegal irrespective of what it is. Yeah I agree, no argument there. 3) Here is where your argument is moronic. Firstly, we are not talking about ''a bit of deep heat on sensitive skin''. We are talking about a group of fully grown men, forcibly restraining a 16 year-old boy against his will, and inserting a finger covered in deep heat inside his rectum. Secondly, you are suggesting a moral equivalence between that - which would be regarded by most people, both legally and morally speaking, as a disgusting act of abuse - and going for a pint with your Dad when you are underage? I stand by what I said. That is genuinely moronic. Feel free to go and check with other people. Maybe ask your Dad? Maybe ask some of your friends whether or not they think the two are the same? I seriously doubt anyone will agree with you and I am not saying that because I ''don't get out much'' or because I have a ''boring life''. I suspect if you voiced such opinions publicly you would get some very strange looks. Thirdly, you go even further and suggest a bit of underage drinking is actually worse because of the harm is causes. My parents supplied me with alcohol when I was underage. Probably a bad idea yes, but in no way is it comparable to someone forcibly shoving their finger inside my rectum. Going for a pint with your Dad when you are underage does not make you an alcoholic, that is just naive. I wouldn't usually mention this on an internet message board but seeing as it's pretty much anonymous and its relevant to what we are discussing, I should say that I am in a good position to know. I am a recovered alcoholic myself and I have met a lot of alcoholics, none of whom have ever reported their Dad buying them a drink when they were underage as being in anyway responsible for the problems they subsequently developed. To go back to my original point... I am genuinely slightly disturbed and ashamed that so many people feel the need to provide apologetics for an extreme instance of bullying and an act that most would regard as sexual abuse. I get that the moral climate was slightly different, but we are talking about something that happened in living memory for most people on here. It is clear from the comments made by people like PotterLog and Werrington on this thread that not everyone regarded this sort of shite as acceptable. Perhaps if the rest of you - or people in general - had the same good sense and courage that they did to know right from wrong then this sort of abuse would not have been quite so widespread. Again please explain why it's sexual abuse??????????? And again stop with the apologist bollocks as said before and please listen "BACK THEN WHEATHER RIGHT OR WRONG THESE THINGS HAPPENED FACT AND WAS ACCEPTED AS RIGHT OF PASSAGE TO ADULT HOOD AND ALL THESE SO CALLED APOLOGISTS WERE IN FACT ABUSED AS A MATTER OF FACT THEMSELVES BECAUSE THAT@S HOW IT WAS BACK THEN GREAT THAT YOU ARE SO YOUNG THAT THIS BY PASSED YOU BUT GIVE IT A FUCKING REST"
|
|