Wikileaks founder a rapist and molester...?

[Kasz216]

dib8rman said:

Kasz216 said:

I mean, honsetly, I don't even get what you think your argueing at this point.... I mean lets review.

1) You came up with some experts who were later shown to not be experts.

2) You brought up 3 analogies, two of which never happened. (Flat Earth and Oxygen) and a third that went against your point. (Galieo)

3) Brought up men of statuotry rape who had to pay child support.  The rulings showed the same would apply to women who were statutory raped and don't have the child... point still not made.

4) Brought up a case where a man was a POW and was thrown in jail for not paying child support... and offered zero support that this was because he was man and that it wouldn't happen to a woman.  It's just sexism versus men because... you never actually gave a reason here.

5) The prevelence of people not believing rape victims.  Which is true, and is true because people look at women as inferior to men, therefore it's impossible to be raped by a woman.  That and the idea that "Men want to have sex really badly, and therfore if they cheat it's natural."  

 

I mean, i'm not "dancing around" any points... I'm literally waiting for you to make one.  

Also for you to somehow tie this into Julian Assange.  

For someone hellbent to start an arguement not even tangentially related to the topic... i'd expect you to have a better one.

Well, you started saying anyone who said Asange's claim to not having a fair trial is bashing these women. You out right called me out on that, which is my point... not sure how you think I'm talking about Asange's case at all for someone so on point as you are.

The Oxygen case was actually Air, go figure and I had to switch which scientist I was talking about because I simply confused them and I've already explained why they both (flat earth and oxygen) sufficient examples, it's not my fault if your tactic is to play the victim role so no matter what example I give you'll hijack it claim it as your own and then point and say "see, we have been persecuted like these people." or just be flippant about it.

The point is it was a rape case against a minor who had to pay child support, if your looking at it for more than that you'd have to indicate where your scenario actually happened. Again until you do that your scenario is just a word game.

You've been making false claims this entire chat, well not so much false but only attacking through an adjacent argument, which is not a bad tactic but pointless. If I'm talking about ethics and you bring up gender issues, if I'm talking about Asanges' point maybe being valid and you say I'm sexist for it you've given all the signs of dancing around your point.

I've made mine at least seven times already in all of these posts and at this point your just projecting.

Honestly talking to you is just talking to a long winded fourth grade you should save yourself the trouble and respond with: "I'm rubber your glue!"

Except you know... all of that is true that I wrote.

A) The Galieo example supports me, because you know... you were talking about nonexperts involvign themselves into the affair of experts.  Which is what you were doing.

You've also, got one problem... those people had proof.  You've provided none.  Ever hear the saying "Extrodinary claims need extrodinary evidence."  So far all you've offered is the observations of unrelated people.

B) You can't argue the ethics of gender without talking about gender issues.  I mean, that's like saying "I'm going to argue the ethics of factory farming, but I don't want to talk about factory farming."  If you don't understand what factory farming is, you aren't really going to be able to argue the ethics of factory farming.

C)  As for assange's point being valid.  I already showed it wasn't?  Rape cases aren't tried behind closed doors. Did you not catch the Judge's ruling on that.

D)  "The point is it was a rape case against a minor who had to pay child support, if your looking at it for more than that you'd have to indicate where your scenario actually happened. Again until you do that your scenario is just a word game."

I honestly have no idea what you are argueing here.  So you aren't saying it was a case of sexism?  So what was your point? 

 

Like seriously, you haven't made a point this entire time.  It's all been a jumbled mess.  Quite seriously, what in the world is your thesis here.

Boil it down in to a sentence so i can even figure out wht your saying.

"I believe that..."