MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
You've used one anecdote about one woman using it as an understatement to assume that girls say making out when they actually don't even mean kissing.
You are just pulling stuff out your ass.
The basic problem of the unanswered questions that supposedly require a conspiracy to explain, is that the eyewitness testimony to the shooting, all of it, is given equal weight. Which is not how eyewitness evidence works. If ten people say they saw Jimmy shoot his friend Billy, including Billy himself before he died. And Jimmy is found a block away with a gun that matches all the bullets found in Billy. But an 11th guy says he saw the shooting and he couldn't identify Jimmy in a line up. And a 12th guy who saw Jimmy being arrested on TV says he also saw the same guy putting his car through the carwash at the time of the shooting. And years later people who originally said they saw nothing or saw nothing that contradicts the first ten eye witnesses wind up having vivid detailed memories of having conversations with Jimmy around the time of the shooting, or recall seeing Jimmy and Billy laughing and joking minutes before the shooting (which means neither could have killed the other, of course, right?)... and so on. When that happens, you are not obligated to explain all the varied and non-corroborated statements that contradict what the primary witnesses consistently described, independent of one another. It does not always require proof of falsehood of one testimony when it contradicts several other testimonies, all consistent and obtained independently, when the differing sets of testimonies cannot both be true.
So because Britney couldn't bring herself to state explicitly that she had a sexual relationship, in an autobiography, you're assuming that when Anne Hathaway is lying about making out, and never kissed anyone in an audition. Because "they" keep using it that way.
So your logic is non-existent and your paranoia about what "they" do is rampant.
No further questions.
It's the topic of this thread, Einstein.
[b]In this case she probably means they had to joke, hold hands and be flirty. [/b]
Yeah. Sure..... That's what people often mean when they say they were making out. Other than they times that they use it euphemistically to avoid admitting to a sexual relationship, they also use it falsely to make acting flirty sound like actually kissing. That happens a lot....
That's what makes her daring the police to arrest her all the more perverse and exposes it for the blatant attention seeking it is. Plus her hijacking of the hate crime law to enhance her notoriety is not helpful for the people it is intended to protect.
Why would Trump need immunity if he's certain to be found not guilty of anything?
An emphasis on immunity is generally considered an admission of guilt.
Black actors in shakespeare aren't pretending to be white actors.
You are so fucking off the mark comparing actors in blackface with black actors in their own face that I'm sure you don't care.
1. Oh
2. The law has everything to do with abortion.
3. It's not as simple as your answer.
4. What the fuck has that got to do with hating abortion
5. People can and do assume, rightly or wrongly, that sex can have no consequence. Have done for centuries. And when abortion wasn't available or legal.
I know.
1. Define how it has become a "new being"
2. Then you don't understand abortion and the law.
3. So what exactly are you advocating regarding abortion and the law? Are you just using the thread as and excuse for broadcasting your acquired piety regarding people who have sex with people they have no plans to commit to or would not commit to?
4. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Sex in a way that assumes there can be no consequence that you can't mitigate or avoid with a termination.
1. Explain to me what's new about it and why that means it must be carried to full term.
What if you were able to take effective birth control after intercourse but before fertilisation? Like up to 90 seconds before the sperm meets the egg. What difference does that make in the context of a termination that occurs, say 9 hours after fertilisation had taken place?
2. Who a person sleeps with and what future you intended or don't intend or desire with them has ZERO relevance to imposing the completion of pregnancy to term on women.
3. You're insisting that abortion was actually irrelevant to whether or not you had sex with somebody. Then why are you also insistent that abortions not be available to people having sex in certain ways? This is really about the people you suspect of not having sex properly. As a reaction to your supposed guilt at having consequence free sex at one stage in your life. You couldn't be more transparently hypocritical and disingenuous.
People put far more thought and care into getting married than they do having sex. And yet when the marriage becomes undesirable, there's no law insisting you have to stay married just because it's a big decision and you shouldn't be allowed to back out of. Instead you get stuck with it to spite your lack of commitment.
For decades, Juliet was originally played by adult men, instead of 14 year old Veronese girls.
If propriety within the context of the play's creation and realisation is what's important, then Juliet should be played by someone like Michael Cera. Ncuti Gatwa had more chance of playing Juliet than, say, Chloe Grace Moretz in 1600s.
Until the late 1800s and beyond, Italians were considered just as foreign as anyone else in the world by the English. You're dreaming if you think the author and its intended audience was keen on the authentic portrayal of the characters in that play's assumed whiteness.
Everything in Shakespeare is "pretend".
Avenatti must be one of those demons that the resident loonys claim have dominion over all, including the hapless, powerless multitudes who follow Trump.
Bullshit.
Egg? Are you confusing an egg with a fetus now? An egg can determine if it will be fertilized by nearby sperm or not. It's just as much life as the sperm and the fetus it becomes. Fun Fact. The sperm stops swimming and the egg rests too once fertilisation occurs. Cells begin to divide instead. Arguable the fetus is less recongisable "alive" once fertilisation occurs.
We don't give a shit who you've slept with, whether it was good or not, and how you feel about it now. What the fuck has your choices got to do with dictating to all women that they must carry every pregnancy to term? It is totally irrelevant.
The reason you were carefree, then and now, was because abortion was available. Spare us your fake guilt at you and your former sexual partners having been free to do as you please and not have either your lives potentially ruined by consequences. Do you realise how fucking petty and hypocritical it is, no matter how pious you attempt to sound, to deny people freedoms that you enjoyed because you don't think that fucking those women was ultimately worth it? You're cukoo.
How can something that swims not be alive?
Fun fact. A sperm is a significantly better swimmer than either an unborn fetus or a newborn child.
[quote]Here is the Truth you want to hide from. SEX is a lot more important than just getting your rocks off. It has potentially serious consequences.[/quote]
Most of those consequences are avoidable when the mother is not forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
There is absolutely no evidence that the outlawing of abortion is a deterrent to unwanted pregnancy. Your position is based on nothing but your BS sense of propriety.
He always wears one. It's having to be in court all day and not have someone change it for him that's causing the bigger than usual stink.
The mentality of people who proudly declare that speech is a protected freedom, then vehemently deny specific types of speech from having taken place.
Why would anyone deny saying anything to anyone? Is speech not supposed to be free?
(The mentality of me arguing with them though....)
Did I say that anyone was saying that? No. Just another straw man.
It simply illustrates that free speech does not mean free of consequence. If speech was as free as you say it is, then it should not be illegal to say anything. But that's not true.