Page 52 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 540

Thread: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

  1. #511
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,935

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    At best this post desrves a bronze.
    Yeah, I just noticed someone beat me to it.

    51 pages ago.

  2. #512
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I won't defend your ill informed statement why would I. I've already show proof nudity is not a requirement for sexual assault.

    You refuse to refute that information and now claim you won. How very sad.
    Now you are moving the goalposts. I said in THIS situation (i.e. the statue), there was even a post where I said it, where nudity IN THIS CASE WOULD be required. My god man do you not read posts? I can point you to the posts, but I can't make you think.

    Please show me where sexual assault against a statue is even possible.

  3. #513
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    But was it...statutory rape?

    Ah...haha...hahahahaha.

    Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
    Yeah they did, but it's still funny

  4. #514
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Now you are moving the goalposts. I said in THIS situation (i.e. the statue), there was even a post where I said it, where nudity IN THIS CASE WOULD be required. My god man do you not read posts? I can point you to the posts, but I can't make you think.
    I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra
    Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
    Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra
    Please show me where sexual assault against a statue is even possible.
    You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. Anything else?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #515
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    But was it...statutory rape?

    Ah...haha...hahahahaha.

    Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
    Did the statue consent to the encounter?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #516
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.
    No I didn't, I clarrified my comment, I didn't change it. There is a difference. Too bad you're more conscerned with some sort of weak "Gotcha" than you are at discussion.
    Pathetic on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. Anything else?
    If you are talking about your links, I already refuted them. Everyone one of them talks about the victim being a PERSON. A Statue is NOT a person. I'll take your concession.

  7. #517
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    That would depend on laws concerning the distribution of obscene material, and whether the photographs constitutes obscenity.
    My point was that the 1st amendment isn't a bulletproof defense against any legal ramifications you might encounter regarding the content of a photograph you distribute.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  8. #518
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,935

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    My point was that the 1st amendment isn't a bulletproof defense against any legal ramifications you might encounter regarding the content of a photograph you distribute.
    I have no illusions about the first amendment being "bullet proof" as I'm well aware of exceptions to free speech. My problem with the definition of desecration, however, is that it can be applied so widely that essentially any instance of expression can live up the standard of the definition.

  9. #519
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,525

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:



    Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.

    You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. Anything else?
    Was the statue offended? Has anyone bothered to ask the statue how it feels? Do you think that the statue will cope and learn to make it through the sexual assault?
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  10. #520
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    No I didn't, I clarrified my comment, I didn't change it. There is a difference. Too bad you're more conscerned with some sort of weak "Gotcha" than you are at discussion.
    Pathetic on your part.
    It has nothing to do with gotchya anything it is a clarification of your misstatement, which is why I asked you for a citation right away.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    If you are talking about your links, I already refuted them. Everyone one of them talks about the victim being a PERSON. A Statue is NOT a person. I'll take your concession.
    My links prove nudity is not required for a sexual assault to take place - that's what I've said from the beginning, it was correct then and it's correct now.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •