… in defending a man who raped children and will die in jail for it.
Hmmmm. Conservatives and child rape. Two great things that go great together, I guess.
What have I said to you every other time you’ve made this deliberately dishonest and mealy-mouthed claim? Surely you remember as I must have corrected you on it more than a dozen times.
I never mock sincerely held religious beliefs and I respect people who live their lives in accordance with those beliefs. However, I don’t believe that you get to impose your beliefs, no matter how sincere, on those that don’t believe as you do.
I do mock hypocrisy, so if you are going to hold yourself up as a shining example of sexual fidelity and family values, you better practice what you preach. Because if you believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin I’m going to laugh and laugh and laugh when you get caught with your dick in some male hustlers mouth. If you preach about the sanctity of marriage I’m going to laugh and laugh when you get caught fucking your teenaged intern.
When you are in a Pit, maybe a shovel is not the right tool.
Starving Artist will probably crow that you’re wrong about this, therefore you’re wrong about everything, so in anticipation of that:
SA was defending Joe Paterno, who was accused of turning a blind eye to and therefore enabling the predatory behaviour of Jerry Sandusky who, according to eyewitness Mike McQueary, sexually assaulted a child in Penn State shower room in 2001. SA never expressed doubt that the assault (or Sandusky’s numerous other assaults) took place or that Sandusky was guilty (that I can recall), but on the very specific charge of “child rape” on that very specific occasion, he suggested physical impossibility, bolstered by his now-infamous cardboard-tube test, on the grounds that if people were wrong about an act of “child rape” on that occasion, they must be wrong about everything, including Paterno.
As I recall, Starving Artist seemed quite pleased every time the phrase “child rape” was used because he cheerfully and repeatedly pointed out that Sandusky was not specifically convicted of rape, therefore anyone using the phrase was wrong to do so, and by implication, wrong about everything, including Paterno who is therefore and somehow exonerated.
It was clearly an act of desperation, like someone reading a list of accusations against Hitler and disputing the one about him kicking puppies, because he clearly loved dogs and would never hurt one, therefore winning! We should indeed strive for historical accuracy and not embellish, but Starving Artist’s actions deserve to haunt him as long as he remains active on this board, and associated with our fading memories of him after he is gone.
IIRC, Clothy himself is an atheist, and has mocked people with religious beliefs. So he, of all people, shouldn’t be accusing liberals of sneering at “Judeo-Christian values”.
I’m going to attempt to rewrite ClothaTrump’s talking points that he quoted to produce something more objective and not rely on opinion and conjecure.
There. It won’t solve anything, but I made an effort.
It was this post:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15561018
I mean it’s a trivial claim, that a tall person can have sex with a short person… So you shouldn’t be so reticent about admitting it.
Obviously tall people can bang short people, in a variety of positions, including standing, with knees bent, from behind.
To tie it to this thread’s topic, I think right and left can agree that sex in that position is possible.
[Moderating]
Posting in non-English languages is generally against the board rules, because we Moderators can’t moderate stuff we can’t read. In this case, Google Translate tells me that the phrase in question is “Suck my cock, friend.” Which is also against board rules.
So knock it off.
[/Moderating]
Thanks for that translation though!
The reason I don’t “admit” it is that I never said it…and you know that perfectly well.
Over time I’d forgotten what a dishonest person you are and had slowly come to believe that you were basically a good person, somewhat air headed (ala your ridiculous stance in the Charlie Rose/Al Franken threads) but nonetheless well-meaning. Thanks for reminding me that you’re just as dishonest as Bryan Ekers, albeit less strenuously.
And has long been my practice, this is all I have to say here about the Paterno issue. While I can understand my erstwhile opponents’ desire to make an issue of the paper tubes, given that of all the significant allegations they made about Paterno were thoroughly debunked and the tubes are all they have left to make an issue of, any further discussion will need to take place in the appropriate thread.
I’m sure he did defend Paterno, but since Paterno wasn’t accused of fucking a kid in a bathroom, the “paper towel tube defense” was a defense of Sandusky. So I stand by what I said: He defended child rape by saying it wasn’t physically possible when we’ve nearly all seen enough porn (regardless of our tastes) to know that tall people screw short people standing up all the damned time.
Only idiots interpret what I said that way. So by all means stand by it. 
Oh, gosh, SA called me an idiot. With a smilie face, even! 
Sorry that you think I’m a bad person. I’ll continue to think that you’re probably a decent person, just deluded on a lot of things.
He truly did go down the rabbit hole, though,
If you fail to show contorted agony, preferably with screaming and tears, you are not actually being raped. Or, if it is not painful, it must not really be rape. Or something like that.
By the way, SA, if I’m wrong and you actually do understand and never contradicted the fact that it is indeed physically possible for a tall person to have sex with a short person while standing, then I apologize for misunderstanding you for all this time.
Well then what is this? A few posts down from the thread that iiandyiiii linked. It sure looks like you said that …
Now you can run away from this thread like the lying little bitch you are.
And well you should. My comment was not in any way intended to disparage you, but just in anticipation that Starving Artist would nitpick some trivial element of your post. It turns out he is even lazier than I anticipated, and simply said you are wrong (smiley) without any detail at all. Clearly this will be his response to any criticism, so hashing out the details is a waste of time, as is the case with the OP of this thread, I am sure. Still, it can be a little bit amusing.
As a side note, anyone who is called as dishonest as me is being complimented. My dishonesty level is actually pretty low. I invite anyone who thinks otherwise to provide cites to that effect, unless you’re just too damn lazy to bother.