Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
Facetiousness doesn't work well over the intertubes. Of course I don't view someone as being "evil" or "vile" because they feel attracted to something slightly out of the norm.
|
Whose being facetious?
I'm merely pointing out that I thought you may have contradicted yourself in that post and because of it, could have led to a misunderstanding of your point.
I was unsure if you meant to use the word
pedo in inverted commas or not.
If you did, then I understand your post.
If not, then your post is ridiculous, not to mention incredibly ignorant.
For example;
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
So why the emphasis on how evil and vile those terrible pedos are?
|
as opposed to;
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
So why the emphasis on how evil and vile those terrible "pedos" are?
|
Then to confuse matters;
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
Of course I don't view someone as being "evil" or "vile" because they feel attracted to something slightly out of the norm.
|
^ WTF! See how this can be so easily misconstrued?
Surely you're not defending the actions of a paedophile?
I was only giving you the opportunity to clarify your stance.
It seems "Facetiousness" isn't the only thing that doesn't work well over the "intertubes".
So what is it...are you defending pedos and clearly insane, or are you making a point about the sensationalism of the media?
Is this what you mean Unfan?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by oojay
It's not always pedophiles who abduct children. Sometimes it's a spiteful parent or crazy childless hag.
But it all boils down to sensationalism in the media. "Child gone missing" fails in comparison to "Convicted child rapist abducts children for devious act."
|