(March 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Cool story broseph. Tell it again? Because it looks to me as though every thread you post on you want to get your vagina wet for every other thread you've been on.
And Esquilax isn't my 'boy'. Grow up.
(March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 4, 2015 at 4:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 4, 2015 at 2:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is the case: I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening.Now THAT is a bald faced lie.
Selective, ridiculous over-literalism is kinda his deal.
We already know you have a selective memory, how about providing the link to support to that claim?
Actually, I did misremember slightly: we weren't talking about rape, but slavery. The word "slave" does not appear, and therefore it cannot be slavery.
Incidentally, you really shouldn't have challenged me on this point, because I'm having genuine trouble picking between instances of you using this exact same argument whenever it's convenient for you. Over multiple topics, in fact: Here's you asserting that the bible doesn't say you can own people as property, because it uses the word "possession" not "property." And here's you, in one of your most ridiculous moments, asserting that a particular homeopathic fraud can't be religious in nature because it's only called the "Jesus Shot," and the word "Christ" is never used.
You actually made the situation far, far worse for yourself than if you'd just shut the hell up and accepted your own idiotic behavior. And what was that about me lying? I found three references to that exact argument coming from you: I guess you were the one lying here, eh?