Rape victim ordered to pay child support

[loinburger]

It aint true unless there's pics.

That'll have to wait until I'm home from work

[DinoDoc]

It aint true unless there's pics.

That's an awkward xpost, rah.

[100% Wolf]

Yeeeeeeah. I'm not the one who still beieve 1 in five women has been raped.

No one believes that.

Oh, wait. I forgot. It doesn't matter if what you're saying is true.

[Kidlicious]

This just in: Kidicious is a dickgirl! It says so online, so it must be true.

Smokin Sava's weed and lookin at porn again? Now you're fantasising about me.

[Sava]

Sava thinks reporters shouldn't ask questions that politicians don't like to answer.

I have zero interest or opinion about what questions reporters "should" ask.

[DaShi]

If I were asking a question about Benghazi (which would make little sense in this thread) instead of trying to introduce a little levity into the post I made, he would indeed have a point. As it was he simply came across to me at least as a stoner too stupid/high to admit that he misread the post he attacked.

You tried to make a clever Benghazi reference... and failed. And as usual, when someone calls you on your idiotic bull****, you back peddle like a mother****er.

[Sava]

Smokin Sava's weed and lookin at porn again? Now you're fantasising about me.

nah, not really into tranny stuff

[Kidlicious]

It aint true unless there's pics.

I only like you for a friend.

[Sava]

If I were asking a question about Benghazi (which would make little sense in this thread) instead of trying to introduce a little levity into the post I made, he would indeed have a point. As it was he simply came across to me at least as a stoner too stupid/high to admit that he misread the post he attacked.

I read the post perfectly. But if you aren't able to anticipate how your posts will be received, that's on you... son.

And even at my stupidest "stoner", I'm still smarter than you... and most everyone else.

[DinoDoc]

You tried to make a clever Benghazi reference...

Yes, you figured out what the joke was. I don't see a reason to back away from that. Pretending that was the question I asked as Sava was, is a bit much.

[Sava]

Also, I already expressed my thoughts on this fictional scenario

So go read the thread.

[DaShi]

DD can only remember 2 posts at a time: the last post in the thread and his response to it.

[rah]

That's an awkward xpost, rah.

It wasn't an xpost

[Sava]

DD can only remember 2 posts at a time: the last post in the thread and his response to it.

That's not necessarily a bad policy... especially when your shtick is to point out seemingly innocuous logical contradictions in attempt to discredit a rival political party.

[DinoDoc]

Also, I already expressed my thoughts on this fictional scenario

I saw your post Sava. It didn't really give me an answer for the apparent cognitive dissonance on display in the story Ming linked to. The authorities convicted the woman of a crime because of his inability to legally give consent. The same authorities now are holding the victim in that case responsible for the aftermath of that crime because they now view the relationship as consensual. If they convicted the woman of a crime based on the state's unwillingness to recognize his ability to give consent, why should that consent make a difference now?