Sicklee Sausage Roll

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way. 77739[/snapback] I'm not saying you're condoning anything-I'm criticising your logic. You never mentioned maturity in the mental sense until now, which is exactly what I think Dotbum and myself picked up on so starkly. I get where you're coming from-what you're saying basically takes account of the Graham Rix ambiguity/concern of some hetero males, which of course can be a very legitimate concern. However, that of itself does not justify treating people differently based on their sex/sexuality-these are questions of basic human rights. There may be a legitimate reason to treat people differently but the one you put forward was not it tbh. 77751[/snapback] I only ever said that. All I said was that the two situations were different because of various biological issues. I didn't say anything should be changed or that people's rights should be taken away. Therefore you've u-turned and agreed with me. I can't wait to take my maternity leave. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not the idiot you tried to make me out to be in your first post. 77769[/snapback] You said that male hetero and homo ages of consent could not be the same and then premised this entirely upon the 'Graham Rix'/14 year old girls in nightclubs argument. That's (quite simply) defective logic. Thats all I'm pointing out. 77785[/snapback] You win. Can I retract that statement? I didn't mean it to come out that way. Not faulty logic, poor communication skills.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way. 77739[/snapback] I'm not saying you're condoning anything-I'm criticising your logic. You never mentioned maturity in the mental sense until now, which is exactly what I think Dotbum and myself picked up on so starkly. I get where you're coming from-what you're saying basically takes account of the Graham Rix ambiguity/concern of some hetero males, which of course can be a very legitimate concern. However, that of itself does not justify treating people differently based on their sex/sexuality-these are questions of basic human rights. There may be a legitimate reason to treat people differently but the one you put forward was not it tbh. 77751[/snapback] I only ever said that. All I said was that the two situations were different because of various biological issues. I didn't say anything should be changed or that people's rights should be taken away. Therefore you've u-turned and agreed with me. I can't wait to take my maternity leave. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not the idiot you tried to make me out to be in your first post.

Neither would be illegal, but I'd think both men were taking advantage of a naive young girl/boy.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner." 77695[/snapback] It's clearly based on a male hetero viewpoint for a start. Not that I'm bent or owt! And the point about justifying a distinction in consent age between gay/straight situations (if indeed there is justification for such a distinction) must surely be premised on the potential for greater abuse/damage to the underage person than the fact that one sex might 'look older physically' Just cos a lass of 14 might look16/18/20 how does that mean shes ready for sex with a fat sweaty 40 year old bloke who might be coercing her or using all sorts of undue pressure or influence etc? Defective logic-and if not entirely defective, certainly not sound 77706[/snapback] Don't turn it around to make it look like i'm condoning sex with underage girls. The point I was making is that it is even worse to act in a predatory way towards under-age males, because they are arguably less developed mentally and physically at that age. While a predatory male could argue that he is attracted to a 14/15 year-old in the same way he would be attracted to an 18/19 year old, how many 14 year old boys even look remotely like men? They were putting hormones in the food of everyone else's schools obviously. Owld man/young lad or Owld man/young girl. Not right either way.

Thats the worst logic I've ever heard. Truly lamentable reasoning. Pick up your cards and your N-O premium lifetime membership on the way out. 77694[/snapback] Explain how it is wrong, rather than just saying "Wrong, ner ner."

(male)homosexual and hetero ages of consent cannot be treated equally, because a girl develops quicker than a boy. A 14-15 year-old girl might pass for an 18-20 (especially with the right clothes and make-up), but a 14 year-old lad would look his age most of the time, surely? When I was 18, I still looked about 14. Missed an opportunity to make a few quid, I reckon. Oh, and Meenzer, did you not get an 'awkward' stage during puberty? Did you go out looking for cock the moment your balls dropped?

I reckon he looks like Kimberly Davies after a hundred bee stings directly to the face.

I know the country is desperate for new teachers, but haway, we've got to be a little choosy.

Being a young-un (relatively), I googled and found: Has anyone seen 'A Fish called Wanda'? I wonder if they were taking the piss out of that.

Souey, you lucky, lucky bastard!

Luque answers his critics:

Is that why we rewarded him with a new contract?

How come these players (Viana, Luque etc.) only realise they're not interested in playing for us after they've signed the lucrative contract?

Lying cunt knew he was going back to Turkey when he said that.

You're joking, surely?

The 'Comic Strip presents' thing was total shoite. Didn't raise a single smile, let alone a laugh. Rik Mayall playing the same character he's only ever played.

Not a fan then?

If it was my kid, I would've had the back door locked.

Wouldn't the halfway back home be just as dangerous as the halfway up?

All the East Stand seats are near the pitch. Row E should be five rows from the front, iinm.

Gerrard says Bowyers tackle should only have been a yellow and that he overreacted at the time.

Yeah, am listening on BBC Newcastle, they said Crouch should have probably gone and that Bowyers tackle was "a cowards tackle". 71506[/snapback] If the tackle was so bad, how come Alonso didn't get stretchered off?

Sent off for being pushed over? When was that rule made?

Boumsong CAN defend. He's just blocked Shearer's shot from going in.