annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Obama did in fact nominate a homo for Secretary of the Army.
That's not quite your thread title though, is it?
Did Obama in fact nominate a child molester?
Obama did in fact nominate a homo for Secretary of the Army.
That's not quite your thread title though, is it?
Did Obama in fact nominate a child molester?
Can I prove you aren't? Or anyone for that matter?can you prove that fanning isn't a child molester?
can you prove that fanning isn't a child molester?
Can you prove that he is a child molester?
cabinetmaker said:slan·der
noun: slander
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Can I prove you aren't?
Facthe's a self-admitted homo
Unsupported conjecture. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals who are frequently maried.homo's are child molesters
Your logic is built on an unsupported assertion so it fails and you become guilty of slander.therefore, fanning is a child molester
qed
Which technically makes it lible.1. I haven't spoken. I'm typing this.
First, there has been much study done that does not support your assertion. Homosexuals males are only rarely pedophiles as well. Pedophilia is a separate deviant behavior that is not determined by the persons sexual orientation. Second: I said nothing about you at all. I asked you to rise to the standard of legal proof by proving that the man is actually a pedophile. I noted that if you can't you could be guilty of slander. As I said nothing about you personally, I have not slandered you.2. I'm asking you to prove that what I have typed is false. If you can't, you are in danger of committing slander yourself.
You have openly stated in a public forum that the man is a pedophile. Should he feel that he has been slandered or libled by you, a court order would make short work of your anonymity.3. I'm an anonymous poster on an internet discussion board. Feel free to demonstrate the damage I am doing to fanning's reputation.
None of which makes him a pedophile. Nor does God consider him to be irretrievably damaged. God sent His Son to die for Fanning's sins and if Fanning accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, he will be saved.4. Fanning already admits to being a homosexual pervert, which God calls an abomination. From a Christian perspective, fanning's reputation is already irretrievably damaged.
You have openly stated in a public forum that the man is a pedophile. Should he feel that he has been slandered or libled by you, a court order would make short work of your anonymity.
You don't think a court could order Knight to turn over your registration information? Why do you think that he would not comply with a court order?you really are a retard, aren't you? :dizzy:
sorry, no time for tards today :wave2:
let's back it up
why did Jesus choose to remain silent?
Probably, the primary factor was that he wasn't trying to save himself.
Maybe you should assume less and study more.I always assumed He was refusing to respond because it wasn't worth dignifying his accusers with a response
kinda like why I stopped responded to cabinetmaker :idunno:
(who is, I see, taking his victory laps :chuckle: )
Spoiler
I always assumed He was refusing to respond because it wasn't worth dignifying his accusers with a response
kinda like why I stopped responded to cabinetmaker :idunno:
(who is, I see, taking his victory laps :chuckle: )
Spoiler
That is not a fact. The actual fact is that far more heterosexuals are pedophiles.
That is not a fact. The actual fact is that far more heterosexuals are pedophiles.