Message board for people who wish to roleplay and discuss rape fantasies. |
|
Welcome to the Rape Board - Free rape pictures and videos. |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
Rape gallery | Incest gallery | Bestiality gallery | Gay sex gallery | Anime gallery | Scat gallery |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-14-2007, 03:20 PM | #41 | |
the obscure
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,457
Reputation: 14892 |
Quote:
I disagree. When in RR we tend to forget the point of the convo, we just consume our brains trying to find a good insult to post. |
|
11-14-2007, 04:52 PM | #42 |
Living Sextoy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,500
Reputation: 103987 |
erm....de-caf anybody?
x
__________________
-- Fear is a four letter word. So is rape, fuck, knot, anal, hump, nuts, lick, clit shag, blow, bend, hard, deep, cunt, slut, bang, tits, dick, oral, used, easy, suck, cock, arse, slap, hold, fist and gang. So all the good ones basically..... x |
11-14-2007, 05:14 PM | #43 |
please delete
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,805
Reputation: 35886 |
me , i'll have one p/f . it's not 'real' coffee , but hey i'm getting it from you so ...
|
11-14-2007, 05:25 PM | #44 | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is no point in asking anyone to justify their opinions when you lack the logic to understand the justifications. You will only attack anything you don't like (whether they can be justified or not) and that's all you're capable of. Quote:
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid that the gibberish that you've been writing will not lead anywhere. Even if it did lead somewhere, and lead stupid people (**********), it will only lead to you getting more and more foolish. If an argument is leading somewhere, it means that it is progressing in a steady and rational manner, and perhaps it might reach closer to the truth. But it is clearly not progressing well due to your stupidity. Quote:
You said "i won't bite that one." So you think that I will give a crap what ignorant people like you think? Quote:
1. Many christians insult. 2. Jack is a christian. This suggests that, 3. Jack insults. Premise #1 can be backed by the various sources that I've mentioned. Premise #2 is an actual truth (Jack once admitted himself that he is a christian). The expression "This suggests that" indicates a possibility, and it is reasonable to conclude that as such because of the word "many" (clarification: it's not just "many", it is actually "most"). This is a reasonable inductive reasoning (many inductive arguments are in a form similar to that), so are you saying that all inductive arguments out there are wrong or unreasonable? I could have said that Jack is a male, that Jack has a computer, that Jack has Internet access, etc. But are they even reasons, much less relevant ones? You're trying to compare relevant reasons with irrelevant ones and somehow say that there is a relation between them. That's complete bullshit. You're right, if I were to state the following: 1. Most people with computer insult. 2. Jack owns a computer. This suggests that, 3. Jack insults. This is a totally unreasonable argument because I'm basing it on irrelevant (or ridiculous) assumptions/reasons. But my assumptions/reasons ARE relevant. Can you even tell the difference here? The same goes for Jack being a RB member, a homosexual, or having 10 fingers, etc. they're either implicit or irrelevant, or even nonsensical (and anything that is nonsensical cannot be reasons). When I said Jack being a christian is the only reason, I meant that it is the only RELEVANT reason. I've fucking mentioned the word "relevant" before, it's just that you failed to see it. Oh and don't use pathetic lines like "well noone considers this to be relevant!". It's their problem for not believing in the sources that I provided, it's their problem for not understanding christians more than I do, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Quote:
Shouldn't that be "How the fuck would I know what you read?"? Please quit acting like you're smart and logical, because you're nowhere close to reaching to that stage, *********! After consultation with the head moderator this ban has been lifted due to the overlap in time of your warning notification and your ban. Simply put you did not have time to correct your actions. There was no fault in the banning, simply two mods working on the same issue at one time. If this behavior is seen again YOU WILL BE BANNED! Last edited by Wicked; 11-15-2007 at 09:39 AM. Reason: more crap removed |
||||||
11-14-2007, 07:52 PM | #45 |
Banned
|
|
11-14-2007, 09:17 PM | #46 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
* Looks forward to reading the, "Why was ctomie banned?" thread. *
|
11-14-2007, 09:23 PM | #47 |
Enlightning the Night
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 515
Reputation: 97 |
*Looks 4ward 2 write the "Ctomie"-Memory Thread*
__________________
Everytime You Kill A Kitten - God Masturbates!! |
11-14-2007, 09:25 PM | #48 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
All through this all he has managed to really do is dig his reputation into a hole.
|
11-14-2007, 09:27 PM | #49 | |
Self-exiled
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,017
Reputation: 13270 |
Be my guest.
Quote:
Haha... I exaggerated when I said that but seriously, how credible can a website be when you have people talking about their experiences with a certain group of people and then making a conclusion based on those limited amount of people? If you run into two (or let's be generous - five) bad North American people in another country that you're in, does that mean that anybody from Canada and the US have to follow suit to be "bad people"? You're not too different from Hitler; he hated Jews because they were the ones that had to decide whether or not he was going to be in that Art School he liked. Just because of those few Jews, you'd feel comfortable slandering or assuming for the worst about people whom you've never met as a whole? I can understand if you've met EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN on the face of this planet and still come to the conclusion that they aren't good people, but that's after the fact that you've met everyone, judged each and every one of them fairly, and then satisfactorily come to the conclusion that Christians are bad because of X, Y, and/or Z. Since that's not the case, I can't accept the fact that you've only met a handful of people at best and come to the conclusion that ALL of them are bad people. If you've seen all the swans in the world except Australia, you'd think that only swans in the colour of white exist, despite the fact that you've travelled almost all over to investigate. Australia, in reality, is the ONLY place where you'll see black swans. Thus, at this moment in time, you are making a huge logical fallacy. |
|
11-14-2007, 09:28 PM | #50 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I do. Funny i hold my hand up for being nosy and you say the above, what we are all noticing about your is you always have to have the last say no matter what is said.
Last edited by clan_hunter; 11-14-2007 at 09:35 PM. |
11-14-2007, 09:41 PM | #51 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
2. You admitted to being nosy, so based on that, I said you should blame yourself for being so (instead of blaming me). I wasn't "repeating" what you said; I was coming up with a conclusion based on what you said. The only funny matter here is that you can't distinguish the difference between a statement alone and a statement based on it. Yes, real funny. |
|
11-14-2007, 09:44 PM | #52 |
Banned
|
|
11-14-2007, 09:48 PM | #53 | |
Self-exiled
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,017
Reputation: 13270 |
Quote:
There are members on these forums that feel the need to use personal insults whenever they are attacked in any way (even if I write at the top of a message that "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; you are not one of them, as at least you're willing to respond back maturely and that is what I respect about you. Having said that, I think you're going to have a very tough time responding to post 52 in this thread. |
|
11-14-2007, 09:49 PM | #54 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
11-14-2007, 09:51 PM | #55 |
Self-exiled
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,017
Reputation: 13270 |
|
11-14-2007, 10:09 PM | #56 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
11-14-2007, 10:47 PM | #57 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
I will give two different versions of my response: In the first version, I will assume that your analogy is valid just for the sake of argument. In the second version, I will not assume that, and I'll tell you exactly why your analogy is weak. First version: Our intuition often tells us that it is acceptable to "return the favour" whenever we're wronged. In your example (an extreme one, might I add), I would definitely do anything to defend myself, for example, by beating the crap out of him until he becomes unconscious. But will I "return the favour"? No. Returning the favour means doing exactly what he has done to me, meaning that I'll break into his house, rape his girlfriend, steal his money, etc. and in this case I'm guilty of all these crimes. There is a massive difference between defending yourself and returning the favour here: The former is defense and the latter is revenge. If someone hits me and I hit him back (and you know damn well that I'm talking about hitting him back as revenge), are we both guilty of fighting? Yes, because it doesn't matter what the reason is, retaliation is unacceptable (if you find it acceptable, then you might as well change the law, e.g. propose a bill that says "if someone kills your family, then you're allowed to do the exact same thing to the perpetrator without getting jailed"). If someone were to tell me that the "christian" talk isn't acceptable here, then it makes no sense for them to engage in it themselves by responding, unless you're saying that they're the only exceptions to the rule. Second version: I had to defend myself against someone breaking into my house, raping my gf, stealing my money, etc. because they were posing a threat to my safety and property. If I were to talk about christians (even if I talk about all of them) inside a forum, is that a threat to you or anyone else here? A bunch of text was threatening their safety to the point where they felt the need to defend themselves by responding? That is where your analogy fails: There are no relevant similarities. Quote:
|
||
11-14-2007, 10:51 PM | #58 |
Banned
|
You were blaming me for the responses that I've provoked by starting a topic, when it's really your pathetic nosiness that should be blamed for. I don't think I need to direct you to any part of this thread to prove this because you can see it for yourself. However, if you're too lazy to do it, just ask me to do it for you. I'll show you how wrong you are.
Last edited by ctomie; 11-14-2007 at 11:00 PM. |
11-14-2007, 10:52 PM | #59 | |
please delete
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,805
Reputation: 35886 |
Quote:
so writing "this following post isn't intended to be an insult"; at the top of a personal insult means what to you ? that the person you attack can't respond ? that they have to respond in a non-personal way ? even when it is a unjustified attack ? and if they don't , they are immature ? if they bring up your shortcomings it's unfair ? and needs to stop ? as for me following you around posting after you . how is it different from what you did to gaggirl ? it was ok for you , but i give you a taste of it and it's wrong ? btw this isn't one of those . haven't did one of those since you said it was over . you know before you brought it back up ? i'm responding to what i see as a dig at me . |
|
11-14-2007, 10:57 PM | #60 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Response to post 52 has been posted. |
|
|
|