Make no mistake, you are wrong. I know you are factually wrong, even without reading your ignorant posts, because if were right about anything you would be agreeing with me, not arguing. But what can one expect about people in this site. You never open a book, yet you feel you can lecture others about subjects you don't know anything about.

I'll accept I'm wrong when I'm proven wrong, not when some cowardly little man tells me without doing anything to back it up.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

Yawn As I said, creeps like you just love being wrong, yet at the same time never accept you are wrong.

The point of the post was to skate around the obvious fact that you were unable to counter anything I said by pretending you're above attempting to refute people like me because you've already done so elsewhere, for which there is no evidence. Hey, you're right, it
is
simple.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

And here was I thinking that my post was simple enough. Oh well some people are just slow enough to miss the point of such simple posts.

"Facts requiere evidence".. I see you haven't read what I said, so let me say it again: I've wasted countless hours refuting dumb misinformed creeps like you. To engage in such discussions once again would be pointless. I've done it before and it only leads to the creeps deleting their posts in shame when I present them with enough evidence, but they never accept they were wrong the whole time and such discussions are tiresome. It's not like they understand the ignorance and stupidity of their arguments quickly, oh no, these discussions take days and days. Tiresome days of trying to explain simple facts to people who are not concerned about facts.
I would be
truly
surprised, and shocked, if you're able to provide
anything
remotely logical to suggest it's somehow wrong to be sexually attracted to a healthy female of breeding age, let alone proof. You don't even have to force me to accept anything, that would be my choice just as it would be your choice not to accept what
I
said, all you need to do is muster up some hard evidence or a rational response to prove your point and then move on. I'm sure anyone reading would understand the situation, and realize that your argument was superior. Unfortunately however, as we both know, you won't be able to do that, so better luck next time.
So, as you can see, I'm not interested in refuting your ignorant arguments, because I've done it before and it's pointless and tiresome. The only thing you need to know right now is that I'm right and you are factually wrong. You are ignorant, uncultured, not very bright and you definitely need to start reading more.
If you genuinely cared about not wasting time, you wouldn't have already responded numerous times to repeat yourself and would have simply left the discussion after refusing to address my initial post. Clearly that's not your concern, and as I've seen no evidence whatsoever that you've refuted anything I've said before, elsewhere, unfortunately I'm gonna have to deduce the likelihood that you're full of crap.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

"Facts requiere evidence".. I see you haven't read what I said, so let me say it again: I've wasted countless hours refuting dumb misinformed creeps like you. To engage in such discussions once again would be pointless. I've done it before and it only leads to the creeps deleting their posts in shame when I present them with enough evidence, but they never accept they were wrong the whole time and such discussions are tiresome. It's not like they understand the ignorance and stupidity of their arguments quickly, oh no, these discussions take days and days. Tiresome days of trying to explain simple facts to people who are not concerned about facts.
So, as you can see, I'm not interested in refuting your ignorant arguments, because I've done it before and it's pointless and tiresome. The only thing you need to know right now is that I'm right and you are factually wrong. You are ignorant, uncultured, not very bright and you definitely need to start reading more.

Facts require evidence. Let's see yours, or shut your yap.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

You keep barking all day. You are factually wrong whether you accept it or not.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Dude, you can make claims about refuting people all day, I could just as easily make up a hundred other people I've refuted because I'm so great and everything, but it doesn't impress anyone does it? The bottom line is you can't refute anything
I
said right here and now, and if you can, then link me to a post you made elsewhere that
did
address what I typed specifically if you're too lazy to respond. Otherwise, concede and admit that you're the one who's misinformed. You can call me a dumbass all you like, but without backing up your assertions you're nothing but an empty wagon.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

Nope, sorry, but I can't spend my life refuting misinformed people. It's just not an enriching activity, especially when dumbasses like you just love to be wrong.

Grow some balls and concede - ya got nothin'.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

Eff you too, creep. Thank you and good night.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Coward.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

As I said, I won't even read that sh**. I've already wasted countless hours refuting misinformed perverts like you. So yeah, EFF you and good night.

I can absolutely guarantee you that not only will I not delete my post, but I will bow down and call you King if you can truly refute everything I've said. By all means, I'm very eager to see how ignorant my arguments apparently are, it's easy to say I'm wrong when you don't have the balls to address anything I said other than to call me names and tell me to shut up. The only ignorant one here is you, lad.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

Oh God, not another stupid creep who thinks he can justify his creepy desires. Just shut the fck up. I won't even read your stupid ignorant post, it would be a pointless exercise, I've already wasted hours of my life refuting ignorant a*holes like you before and you NEVER accept you are wrong. The only thing you creeps do after I show you how ignorant your arguments are is delete your own posts. So there's nothing to argue about here, you are a creep and that's it. beep ignorant dumbass.

Christ, it seems every movie that has an under age girl in it, someone is whining about
something
to do with her being sexualized.
It distracts from
actual
paedophiles and real creeps who slip under the radar often unnoticed beneath the sea of whiners bitching and moaning because some dude made a sexual remark about a girl who's 17 and 11 months. It's preposterous, there are
real
monsters out there who fancy 4 year-old
children
and gleefully walk the legal tightrope so they can't be arrested for their often questionable behaviour, and you're complaining about meaningless bollocks like this.
I'm a 24 yo heterosexual male.
Good for you, I'm a 26 year-old heterosexual male, I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with it, but okay
I'm not a woman and I'm not a christian, but I still think it would be amazingly creepy for a 30 something yo to go around looking at teenage girls. There IS difference between a 21 yo girl and an 18 yo girl. 18 yo are usually still mama girls. Even if you think 18 yo girls are already mature enough because law says so, you would be wrong, because most 18 yo are still pretty immature and I would know that because I studied human development during my college years in human sciences. Even if a 21 yo is a 100% complete woman. I would still say that it is creepy for a 40 something yo to look at a woman who could be her own daughter.
I find it incredibly worrying that you supposedly studied human development in college and yet don't understand the difference between sexual attraction and emotional attraction. It makes absolutely no difference what a girl's maturity level is when you're looking at her physical image, the only time maturity becomes a factor is in
dating
this person or having sex with them. This is the mistake so many people like yourself make when arrogantly judging others for what is perfectly normal biological human behaviour because you've probably been raised by the American media and Chris Hansen to believe that anyone who's a teenager is an undeveloped baby. If you walk past an attractive woman in the street, your brain doesn't say "Mmmm, damn, look at that maturity level wouldn't mind a bit of that intelligence " The normal reaction is to admire her face or body, breasts, legs etc., and the same can be said of
any
girl who is far enough into puberty to be physically developed.
And what difference does it make whether or not she "could be his daughter"? That's almost as laughable a non-sequitur as something another idiot once said about the girl being "just barely able to drive", as if any of this is relevant. That's like me saying that because my girlfriend is in the same age group as me, she could be my sister (assuming I had one). Yes, but she's not, so why does that matter?
You're
young enough to be my brother, does that have any bearing whatsoever on
anything?
You're also ignoring the fact that people of
any
age can be immature, should you walk up to a fully grown 30 year-old woman and ask her if she's mentally mature before giving your penis permission to stand up? Talk sense.
There is nothing to "get" here that I'm not getting. In your opinion it is fine to have 30 something yo checking out teenage girls. In my opinion it is just creepy.
There is a
lot
you're not getting. It
is
absolutely fine to check out teenage girls, I wouldn't advise staring because that's rude to anyone regardless of age, but I see no moral issue whatsoever with simply
looking
at a healthy girl of breeding age and finding her attractive, it's bloody human nature, ya prude.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Really? How do you have an opinion on this if you are neither 30 nor a woman?
Your "college years?" What? You mean "last year," right? One day when you ARE a 30 year-old man you will look at a 19 year-old woman and observe the presence of a reaction in your genetalia. Remember this conversation when you do.
Bye.
http://phazzle.blogspot.com

I'm a 24 yo heterosexual male. I'm not a woman and I'm not a christian, but I still think it would be amazingly creepy for a 30 something yo to go around looking at teenage girls. There IS difference between a 21 yo girl and an 18 yo girl. 18 yo are usually still mama girls. Even if you think 18 yo girls are already mature enough because law says so, you would be wrong, because most 18 yo are still pretty immature and I would know that because I studied human development during my college years in human sciences. Even if a 21 yo is a 100% complete woman. I would still say that it is creepy for a 40 something yo to look at a woman who could be her own daughter.
There is nothing to "get" here that I'm not getting. In your opinion it is fine to have 30 something yo checking out teenage girls. In my opinion it is just creepy.