Merged Things that Bubba finds interesting or newsworthy

fagin said:
Just because you are question mark challenged doesn't mean it's not a question...
Click to expand...
In fact "I wonder what it actually is" is not a question, it is a positive statement that Bubba wonders what something is. The question would be "what is the thing he is wondering about?" But "I wonder ... " doesn't need a question mark.
 
I wonder what it actually is, causing the shadow.
Click to expand...

Commonly "I wonder..." statements elicit responses similar to responses elicited by actual questions.

Comin after me? On Sunday? Should I lawyer up?
 
Bubba said:
What questions?

No questions seen in OP. Two seen in your post though.

I would not claim it is anything other than a trick of light and shadow which happens to vaguely resemble a person standing and then crouching a little.

Relax, Just for fun, as the OP's first sentence says.

Note the non-question at end of OP:
Click to expand...

Mendacity.
 
Bubba said:
Ooops, sorry, my bad. But there is the google

I think some of what she says is just common sense, about encouraging behavior/tendencies, true no matter who delivers the message.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/33663207...ayboy-s-Child-Centerfolds-and-Child-Playmates
Click to expand...
One of the sillier things in that article is the insistence that showing images of women with shaved pubic hair means that Playboy was trying to portray them as children. Sorry, no, they were just following cultural trends, the author should have known that. I also don't think that including a playmates child pictures in her biography means that they were trying to sexualize children.
 
Marcus said:
One of the sillier things in that article is the insistence that showing images of women with shaved pubic hair means that Playboy was trying to portray them as children. Sorry, no, they were just following cultural trends, the author should have known that. I also don't think that including a playmates child pictures in her biography means that they were trying to sexualize children.
Click to expand...


Cherry picking, (no pun intended) unless maybe you did not read the part describing what else was done with the child pics...?

Nor do you mention other devices used. If you read the part about shaving, you would have also seen what else was done to portray them as children. Since that came after the part about what what was done with the child pics, Makes me wonder...Are you cherry picking?
 
Posted by Marcus View Post

One of the sillier things in that article is the insistence that showing images of women with shaved pubic hair means that Playboy was trying to portray them as children. Sorry, no, they were just following cultural trends, the author should have known that. I also don't think that including a playmates child pictures in her biography means that they were trying to sexualize children.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta be kiddin. Based on the description of what was done with the child pics, and the captions mentioned, it seems like the opposite is the case. Why else would they do that with the playmate child pics?
 
Bubba said:
Cherry picking, (no pun intended) unless maybe you did not read the part describing what else was done with the child pics...?
Click to expand...
Do you mean placing them in a position the author claims would be used for the purpose of masturbating to both pictures simultaneously? This makes no sense to me. Pedophiles wouldn't have any interest in Playboy centerfolds.
Nor do you mention other devices used. If you read the part about shaving, you would have also seen what else was done to portray them as children. Since that came after the part about what what was done with the child pics, Makes me wonder...Are you cherry picking?
Click to expand...
If you mean things like dressing them like lolitas, or holding dolls, etc, yes, it is a common meme, but I don't think it has any connection with child exploitation. Pedophiles are not going to be interested in anything Playboy has to offer, those girls are aged out as far as they are concerned. The author seems to be looking for ways to be offended. Even the cartoons shown in the article, young girls, but with big breasts, are not something a pedophile would be interested in. Offensive, inappropriate, sure. But not pedophilic, they are interested in people without secondary sexual characteristics.
 
Marcus said
" Pedophiles are not going to be interested in anything Playboy has to offer, those girls are aged out as far as they are concerned. The author seems to be looking for ways to be offended.... not something a pedophile would be interested in...."
Click to expand...



IIRC, part or all of the author's research is that the various devices seen promote new attraction, new behavior toward children in general in the target readership, not necessarily established pedophiles.

Seemed easy enough to understand, reading the paper.
 
Bubba said:
IIRC, part or all of the author's research is that the various devices seen promote new attraction, new behavior toward children in general in the target readership, not necessarily established pedophiles.

Seemed easy enough to understand, reading the paper.
Click to expand...
I understand it , I just don't buy it. You can't turn men into pedophiles, any more than you could turn a gay person straight.

I think there is a confusion with some people, perhaps the author, between pedophiles and hebephiles. The problem is that the term "children" includes both pre- and post-pubescent people.
 
Nope. Given your history of passive-aggressive JAQing and attempted fringe resets, it's a suitable evaluation. But let's take you at your word; even though you invoked an idiot crackpot site with a patently absurd claim, you accept it for what it is: a shadow cast by part of the rover.

Are we done here?
 
Bubba said:
IIRC, part or all of the author's research is that the various devices seen promote new attraction, new behavior toward children in general in the target readership, not necessarily established pedophiles.

Seemed easy enough to understand, reading the paper.
Click to expand...

You can't make healthy men into pedophiles.

Pedophiles don't read Playboy, pedophiles hangout on the dark-web on message board just like this one where they DM each other pictures and videos.

We are six pages into this thread and none of the CT loons have mentioned the dark-web which tells me these jackwagons don't know anything about REAL Pedophiles, nor do they care. It's about spreading lies couched as rumor and innuendo.

The dark web is where you can find real pedophile groups, and get tips and pointers on how to bugger little kids. The FBI and states AG's talk about this often, make arrests when they can. Cters post YouTube threads by loonies, but never post anything useful (rooted in fact).

This thread is a beacon of CT ethics.
 
From the BBC today:
The police spent £1.3 million on an enquiry that produced no convictions, and was based, says an insider, on "the allegations of a handful of fantasists."
This, Henri McPhee, is what happens when people like you are taken seriously. Note also that there was an investigation, not a cover-up, and that it was widely reported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41461053
 
Henri McPhee said:
There was a paedophile scandal a few years ago involving Lord Robertson, a Scot with a senior position in Nato at the time. That was a position of influence and he resigned:
Click to expand...

Do you have any reference for that claim, apart from Rense?

A quick skim through the internet shows that Lord Robertson announced in January 2003 that he would be stepping down as NATO Secretary-General in December 2003. If there was a scandal, it certainly didn't cause him to resign in a hurry!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom