See the second part of my post. Like I said, I'm simply countering your argument and pointing out the irony.Quote:
Then why are you complaining?
There is no irony. If I went into the Jeopardy thread and said nothing more than "I can't wait until Jeopardy is gone" (no reason why nor attempt at discussion at all) then I should expect people to tell me to get out of there, and nobody sane would hold that against them. This is a forum. Where discussions take place. You yourself said that you weren't interested in any sort of discussion (which was clear by your post) and then you act indignant when people don't want to discuss back with you? Ironic you call me trolling when you admit to doing so on PB.Brian Earl Spilner said:See the second part of my post. Like I said, I'm simply countering your argument and pointing out the irony.Quote:
Then why are you complaining?
And it's not like I stuck around the board just to keep trolling people for the sake of nothing except enjoying seeing them get their panties in a twist. Unlike you.
At least you are admitting that it was a Pro-Trump thread and not masquerading as neutral/unbiased.Quote:
If I went into the Jeopardy thread
Where did I admit that? It was a "*** TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ***" thread. So both pro and anti people were in there discussing things like Ukraine, Trump, Biden, the dossier, etc.. Then you go in there (with no intention of discussion) and throw in a one liner, and then wonder why people tell you "go back to the entertainment board".Brian Earl Spilner said:At least you are admitting that it was a Pro-Trump thread and not masquerading as neutral/unbiased.Quote:
If I went into the Jeopardy thread
That's progress.
I am perfectly willing to be friends. The question is can others tolerate discussions they don't like?mazag08 said:
The solution is to not give him fuel. He actually brings up some solid points from time to time. There's no need for his "arguing for the sake of arguing", the same way there's no need for "he's the worst poster ever and that's saying a lot because there's a lot of terrible posters".
Can't we all just be friends?
I never wondered that. I know exactly why.Quote:
and then wonder why people tell you "go back to the entertainment board".
A) When people have brought up politics within a movie guys like TCTTS jump all over that person anyway. The EB police don't just complain about the Ruffalo scenario that you are talking about, they complain about any utterance of politics. Within the movie or not. On something like TLJ it's just too hard to avoid since it's so in your face.Urban Ag said:
I just think it's all about context dude.
For example, if jumped in to the Avengers End Game thread and started going off about Mark Ruffalo being a neo-commie (and he is) that doesn't work. Ruffalo's politics have nothing to do with the film. The Hulk isn't preaching mass redistribution of wealth and open borders. It unnecessarily clutters and derails the thread.
By contrast, all the social wokeness crammed in to the Last Jedi has been discussed and complained about on that thread and others ad nauseum. But that is an actual, indisputable part of the film.
If you really wanted to discuss why you think Trump should be impeached then the board would have had a legit interaction with you.Brian Earl Spilner said:I never wondered that. I know exactly why.Quote:
and then wonder why people tell you "go back to the entertainment board".
I genuinely believe that a large % of Hollywood are narcissistic sociopaths. Talking mostly about the vocal ones who constantly have to virtue signal how "caring" and "compassionate" they are. Just by its very nature, Hollywood is going to attract many of these types.Zemira said:
I can't remember who but on the radio this morning I heard an actress refused him. I forget what movie it was, but because she refused him he had a scene added to the movie. It was a lesbian sex scene that embarrassed her tremendously as she didn't want to do that at all. Yet he got away with punishing her with the scene because he wasn't forcing her.
It sounded incredibly ****ed up. I agree that he seems to be a sociopath.
LOL pretty sure that was me. If I remember correctly, I just gave a heads up/disclaimer to inform others that he hates conservatives, and at least a couple people on here took it as a personal assault on their very being.aTmAg said:
I know TCTTS has cowardly blocked me, so I will say this for everybody else.
A) I have no idea of what movie he is talking about with Judd Apatow. That was probably somebody else.
B) What I have done is when TCTTS tries to act like he is the owner of this forum to enforce his rules on what can and cannot be discussed, I will defend people who want to bring up the political nature of shows. I think that is every bit as valid a topic to discuss as how big the budget is, or good the director, acting, and script are.
You are now backpedaling so hard, you are out of the back of the end zone and halfway out of the stadium.aTmAg said:No, I SPECIFICALLY said otherwise. I was the guy who first bought up Nassar to point out that those victims do not deserve blame:SACR said:Quote:
This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that people who are subjected to rape AND other forms of sexual assault should be duty bound to report it to the police immediately. Because if they wait for months or years there is ZERO chance of the person being convicted, and that person will be free to abuse others. While a victim bears NO blame at all for the assault, the mere fact that they are a victim does not immunize them from blame for every future deed.
Nassar's youngest victim was 6. So it is her fault for not understanding what is happening to her, and not reporting it immediately? And she bears responsibility for all future victims? Are you brain damaged?Clearly neither you, nor the idiots who star you are reading the thread.Quote:
Sorta like the Larry Nassar gymnastics thing. When the gymnasts were young they didn't understand that what was going on (the parents and other adults should have had a freaking clue sooner, however). But as they grew up, they started speaking out because they understood better. I applaud them for that.
The parents and other adults were also victims of Nassar, they just weren't assaulted. They fell for his con because they believed he was a doctor and they trusted him when he claimed it was a medical procedure. His grooming of the parents and coaches and other administrators allowed him to continue to assault the same victims again and again.Quote:
(the parents and other adults should have had a freaking clue sooner, however)
Yes, please tell me how the presumption of innocence works. I have no idea how innocent until proven guilty works, other than sitting on multiple juries for both criminal and civil courts. The first jury I ever sat on, we convicted a child molester who had been abusing his neighbor's daughter from the time she was 6 until she was 10 and a schoolteacher was told, but pleeeassse, tell me how our justice system works.aTmAg said:fifySACR said:
But according to you, the predators should go free if it is not immediately reported unless they have proof.
Clearly you still don't get it. To convict people you need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite what you think, people are presumed innocent in our country. You can't have somebody a decade later claim they were assaulted and have that be sufficient to throw the defendant in jail. That's not the way it works and not the way it should work.
O.M.G. Let me take a completely unrelated situation involving HS girls and athletics, and try to relate it in some tangential way to an online discussion, because I have no real-world examples to back up my illogical and poorly-defended arguments.Quote:
A couple years ago, my daughter's HS soccer coach promised 5 JV girls that they could join varsity for playoffs. We made it to the playoffs, and he told those girls to turn in their jerseys that the were not joining varsity after all. They were pissed and they quit the team in a fit of rage. In your world, what they could have done is claim that the coach sexually assaulted them. That the reason they kept it quiet so long is out of fear, and that "you just don't understand the mental trauma of assault." That we must just assume they are telling the truth and throw the coach in jail. Luckily, people like you aren't in charge of our justice system.
Isn't he an engineer who works for an defense contractor involved in the F-35? That's your answer.TCTTS said:
Don't let aTmAg fool you. We don't shout him down because he has "dissenting opinions." We shout him down because he has a psychotic need to overpower any and every conversation with his unrelenting bullsh*t; bullsh*t that is more often than not political in nature, where politics often have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. And don't even get me started on his kids, who, every time he mentions them, I feel an immense sadness for, knowing they have him as their father. He uses them as pawns in his arguments time and again, just like they're being used as pawns now. That, and the man could argue with a wall for hours, if not days. He is a ruiner of threads to the highest degree; an Entertainment board vampire who sucks the joy and sanity from whatever conversation he is a part of or chooses to insert himself in. Then, of course, he plays the victim when called out, just like he's doing now. It's like clockwork. Every. Single. Time. He is, quite literally, the worst poster in the history of this board, which, considering his competition, is a monumental achievement.
There's still hope.TCTTS said:
Legit shocked staff hasn't nuked this thread yet.
Congratulations, you have taken the first step in ensuring your daughters will blame themselves when something bad happens to them. You're helping further victim-blaming before anything even happens.Quote:
All I'm saying, and have told my daughters the same thing, don't allow yourself to be in a position where someone can take advantage of you.
SACR said:Congratulations, you have taken the first step in ensuring your daughters will blame themselves when something bad happens to them. You're helping further victim-blaming before anything even happens.Quote:
All I'm saying, and have told my daughters the same thing, don't allow yourself to be in a position where someone can take advantage of you.
Let me say this:
If your daughters are out and they get drunk, they are not responsible for getting raped.
If your daughters are out and they get high, they are not responsible for getting raped.
Stop trying to shift the blame from the rapists to the victims, it's stupid, it's wrong, and it perpetuates the victim-blaming mentality that allows predators to go free.
harrierdoc said:
None of these women, as far as I know, were intoxicated in any way.
If my daughters are chemically altered, on their own accord, they are responsible for their actions. That doesn't absolve a rapist of their actions, but it does mean that they allowed themselves to be in a position to be taken advantage of, and that is on them.
Certainly they should always be in control of themselves. One can not control the actions of others, but they can almost always control their own actions. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Best answer, don't lose control of your faculties and always rely on what is right and wrong.
Is it wrong to rape. Of course. Is it wrong to drink to excess? I say yes. Have I done it (drink to excess), yes. Would I blame someone for beating the crud out of me if I said something to them without physically threatening them? Yes. Would I also blame myself for putting myself in that position? Again, yes.
Let's say you drank to excess and then were raped by a man. Would you blame yourself for putting yourself in that situation? Or blame your rapist?harrierdoc said:
Is it wrong to rape. Of course. Is it wrong to drink to excess? I say yes. Have I done it (drink to excess), yes. Would I blame someone for beating the crud out of me if I said something to them without physically threatening them? Yes. Would I also blame myself for putting myself in that position? Again, yes.
