Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your logic fails because ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your argument fails because it is based on a logical fallacy.if you think I am a incarnation of Jake report me.Lo[U said:[/U]ckeJaw;9424173]You are really pathetic, not to mention completely transparent, Jake.
And you are only mounting these pathetic personal attacks because your argument fails
My argument does not fail just because I call you a dumb ass,
Okay, it's your claim, the burden of proof is in you. Prove it, other wise it isn't a fact but a childish emotional response due to your frustration in your failed argument. Prove it wrong.it's a fact
Looks like a cartoon to me but people see what they want. And what you see says more about you than it does about me.just like it's a fact The Advocate's mascot is a young boy bent over & they advertised the sales of penetrable boy dolls with vibrating penises that ejaculate...they flew off the shelves!
The avatar is a picture of my 23 year old self, if you seesomething else that is your imagination.And you don't help your argument with that avatar of yours, by the way.
Resorting to personal attracts and projecting sexual fantasies onto pictures?Sil is 100% in her observation.
It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.
If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.
It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.
If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.
It only suggests such things in your twisted mind.It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.
If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.
Noticing that your avatar suggests child prostitution is part of the topic of this thread: lowering the age of consent. Remember?
You are the only one that posted personal attacks, blatant lies or poor understanding of California law. You have distracted yourself with a personal attack on me, you have derailedyour own thread.Though I am perfectly aware of the strategy employed online by coordinated LGBT activists/propagandaists to deflect topics away from getting at the core values of LGBT by personal attacks, strawmen and sidelines. It's just nice to hear one of them [you] admitting that's what they do from time to time.
Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh
It isn't an issue.I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?
Those bastardsBecause there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.
You still hold unjustifiable ethics. You think children are better off in thehands of heterosexuals, they are guilty of wiping out 54 million of them before they were even born.You said on the other thread I was unjustified in being against gay adoption, well...I think I just killed that talking point, so what else you got?
:roflol: I love it when you people call me names, it means your rational is breaking down.Moron.
Sounds like he is a closet case.Silhouette is a cranky old man that thinks about homosexuality 24/7 because he used to have sexual relations with some guy named Milk.
Silhouette is a cranky old man that thinks about homosexuality 24/7 because he used to have sexual relations with some guy named Milk.
Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh
But it was ok for Phil Robertson, huh?
Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh
But it was ok for Phil Robertson, huh?
So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies. Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are. And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.It isn't an issue.I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?
Those bastards.Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.
So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies. Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are. And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.It isn't an issue.I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?
Those bastards.Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.
One could say the picture is a Rorschach test for some.This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.
It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?
To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.
And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....
"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.
You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.
I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.
That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.
I don't entertain loaded questionsSo, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies.It isn't an issue.I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?
Those bastards.Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.
Oh boy, more ad hominem.Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are.
You do support abortion because you made heterosexual, well, that's the logic you use in your asinine assumptions about gay people.And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.
Exactly.One could say the picture is a Rorschach test for some.This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.
"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.
You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.
I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.
That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.
Once I learned that I wasn't speaking with a rational person, logical discussion couldn't occur.Lol, you are a complete idiot. Whining about ad hominems while using them, strawmen..while using them.I don't entertain loaded questionsSo, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies.
Oh boy, more ad hominem.
You do support abortion because you made heterosexual, well, that's the logic you use in your asinine assumptions about gay people.And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.
I don't really believe that heterosexuals all support child abuse, but since your argument. is so absurd I figured I would present an absurd argument too.
Seems it went way over your head.
Guess all those trips to planned parenthood to murder your babies has messed up your mind.
It was a loaded question, youdon't comprehend logic so what do you know?And That wasn't a "loaded question", retard.
I don't entertain loaded questions.It was an OBSERVATION, One you clearly don't want to address for some reason
Champion? I don't think so, one doesn't have to be a champion to knock over the pathetic house of cards argument you present.Learn the difference if youre going to come on the Internet & pose as some wannabe debate champion. Lol.