Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Morgan Freeman reportedly dating step-granddaughter

By Tony Hicks
Contra Costa Times

And here I thought the tale of Kevin Bacon and his wife being distant cousins would take the creepy story of the week award. Morgan Freeman just completely destroyed them.

Freeman, 74, who has long been rumored to be dating his step-granddaughter, will reportedly marry 27-year-old E'Dena Hines when his divorce is final, according to the National Enquirer.

Sounds like someone's been playing golf with Woody Allen.

The pair allegedly have had a 10-year-affair (go ahead, do the math, shudder, and get back to me). Which is allegedly why Freeman's wife filed for divorce.

E'Dena is the granddaughter of Jeanette Adair Bradshaw, Morgan's first wife, but she was raised by Morgan and Myrna since she was a small child. Morgan adopted E'Dena's mother, Deena, who is Jeanette's biological daughter, says the Huffington Post.

"Morgan has led (E'Dena) her to believe that he wants to marry her," says a family insider. Another source says, "Becoming Mrs. Morgan Freeman has been E'Dena's goal."

Obviously. Isn't that every young girl's dream?

http://www.marinij.com/ci_20364022/hicks-morgan-freeman-reportedly-dating-step-grandaughter

edit, typoed the title, damn!

Stupid article beating me to Woody Allen jokes . . .

Is she hot?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Is she hot?

http://images.starpulse.com/pictures/2008/07/15/previews/Morgan%20Freeman%20and%20Granddaughter-SGY-001686.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
http://images.starpulse.com/pictures/2008/07/15/previews/Morgan%20Freeman%20and%20Granddaughter-SGY-001686.jpg

haermm

damn freeman & here i thought you were black jesus

even worse she not even that cute...

Good for Morgan Freeman.

Congratulations are in order.

Also, what is up with the apostrophe in her name...E'Dena. Ugh...

Wow.

A 64 granddad nailing his 17-year-old granddaughter.

wtf

You all are just jelly that you can't mack on women less than half your age.

Pffft. I do it everyday bro.

Right outside Toys R Us.

That's nothing.

I'm known as the Carnal Crusader at Babies R Us.

Oh man. This brings back memories of Backfire's and PVS's conversations on who could one-up the other in the most disgusting ways.

I think its the grand-daughter bit that bothers me but it's step so I guess that means no relation...

It wouldnt be as weird if they weren't didn't have that bond...

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Pffft. I do it everyday bro.

Right outside Toys R Us.

lol

Brings a whole new meaning to "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman."

Originally posted by Mindship
Brings a whole new meaning to "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman."
And I liked that show.

Imagine hearing that voice during sex.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm known as the Carnal Crusader at Babies R Us.

there's some win here. Also some illegality. But some win.

Originally posted by Digi
Imagine hearing that voice during sex. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And I liked that show. The channel was marathoning it yesterday. Definitely a contender for Successor to 'Cosmos'.

Originally posted by Mindship
The channel was marathoning it yesterday. Definitely a contender for Successor to 'Cosmos'.

Wow! I missed it. Well, they will do it again, and again, and again.

maybe shes not in it for the money
maybe he has a big black one..
ahhh maybe not

http://c580019.r19.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/morgan-freeman-affair-edena.jpg

Originally posted by Mindship
Thanks for that.

The channel was marathoning it yesterday. Definitely a contender for Successor to 'Cosmos'. i heard neil tyson is going to be hosting a sequel to cosmos in 2013

So he's porking his granddaughter, the Royal Families have been doing that for centuries.

Originally posted by Thoren
So he's porking his granddaughter, the Royal Families have been doing that for centuries.

And it shows.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i heard neil tyson is going to be hosting a sequel to cosmos in 2013 Tyson'll put on a good show. But w/o Sagan, it'll be 'Cosmos' in name only.

yea, i agree.

will be interesting to see an updated version anyhow.

curious and disturbing. this has been circulated in various tabloids for a couple of years. has it ever been confirmed to be true?

No, why it's "reportedly" and Freeman has not discussed the issue, which could mean he's dodging cos it's true or he's not willing to entertain the nonsense.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, why it's "reportedly" and Freeman has not discussed the issue, which could mean he's dodging cos it's true or he's not willing to entertain the nonsense.

Is it against the law to "..." your granddaughter? I thought it was.

well there is the 'step' part, so who knows

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it against the law to "..." your granddaughter? I thought it was.

Varies from state to state. EG It's not illegal in New Jersey, if it's between two consenting and adult family members.

So if you want to butt**** your sister, move to NJ. Japan is good to go too.

right but does that apply to non-relation?

Originally posted by Robtard
Varies from state to state. EG It's not illegal in New Jersey, if it's between two consenting and adult family members.

So if you want to butt**** your sister, move to NJ. Japan is good to go too.

I lived in NJ, and I don't want to go back.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
right but does that apply to non-relation?

I'm unsure if some states that have incest as being illegal separate the blood and marriage aspects or not.

well i hope its just rumor. it seems kinda far fetched, considering how old he is. (speaking in respect to why the hell that girl would want to have him plow her)

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well i hope its just rumor. it seems kinda far fetched, considering how old he is. (speaking in respect to why the hell that girl would want to have him plow her)

True love?

Originally posted by rudester
maybe shes not in it for the money
maybe he has a big black one..
ahhh maybe not Or maybe they just are in love with eachother.

Living the dream.

He denied it...

http://www.charter.net/tv/3/player/vendor/E!%20Entertainment/player/fiveminute/asset/gnrc_14921969

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He denied it...

http://www.charter.net/tv/3/player/vendor/E!%20Entertainment/player/fiveminute/asset/gnrc_14921969 Of course he did, why wouldn't he when all of you disgusting charlatans insist on demonising him for loving the girl of his dreams?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He denied it...

http://www.charter.net/tv/3/player/vendor/E!%20Entertainment/player/fiveminute/asset/gnrc_14921969

This just proves that he's a liar, too!

does this mean God is going to hell ?

yes it does and he will, just makes him more human to me. But the Q of the day would be, who would make their sugar daddy morgan freeman? Would you? Is she really in love with him or is she using him for the money.

I don't see anything immoral about two consenting adults ****ing eachother, even if one of the adults is old and wrinkly. They aren't even blood-related.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I don't see anything immoral about two consenting adults ****ing eachother, even if one of the adults is old and wrinkly. They aren't even blood-related.

This.


I do not see a problem if they were blood-related, either...as long as they exercise the results of Row v. Wade if appropriate.

Well if it weren't for the fact that one of the adults wasn't an adult prior to the relationship starting, then I would kind of agree.

It's the ped-factor that's disturbing me the most in this.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Well if it weren't for the fact that one of the adults wasn't an adult prior to the relationship starting, then I would kind of agree.

It's the ped-factor that's disturbing me the most in this.

17 is legal is most of the US.
17 is not "ped" anywhere.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Well if it weren't for the fact that one of the adults wasn't an adult prior to the relationship starting, then I would kind of agree.

It's the ped-factor that's disturbing me the most in this.

Uhhh...

What this guy said:


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
17 is legal is most of the US.
17 is not "ped" anywhere.

One amendment: if you are not sexually developed at 17 (you look like you're 12 or something....which does happen), then being sexually attracted to that 17 year old would be pedophilia. Justifying it not being pedophilia just because of a number does not fly psychologically.

Keep in mind, wakkawakkawakka, that pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent humans. This lady was probably not prepubescent at 17. Considering she was black, most likely, she sexually matured ahead of most American females.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Considering she was black, most likely, she sexually matured ahead of most American females.
Is there science behind this?

Erectus Walk Among us also advocates classifying black people as a separate species, I suspect their biases may cause them to be cherrypicking their data just a tiny bit.

lol! oh, dadudemon!


care to share any more knowledge on africans, citing stormfront.org?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
lol! oh, dadudemon!


care to share any more knowledge on africans, citing stormfront.org?


derp!



Care to cite anything to contradict that?



Just because it comes from a clearly bias source, does not mean it is wrong (I can cherry pick which information I want to pull out of a white supremacist website). You'll probably rage at the data that shows that humans that sexually mature faster also have higher IQs at that time: something Stormfront would probably not admit to.



Alright, more games.

Originally posted by dadudemon
derp!



Just because it comes from a clearly bias source, does not mean it is wrong.


Care to cite anything to contradict that?


Alright, more games.

must you add to your own embarrassment by once again demonstrating your ignorance of 'burden of proof'?

:edit: remember kids, its easy to win a thread

1-make outlandish claim
2-cite ridiculously bias misinformation site.
3-declair that burden of proof does NOT lie with the one who asserted the claim.

you could be a local celebrity at the conspiracy forum, bro

Originally posted by focus4chumps
must you add to your own embarrassment by once again demonstrating your ignorance of 'burden of proof'?

Again, you have no idea what it means to provide "burden of proof".

If you wish to poke fun and contradict the statement, feel free to do so.

M

Originally posted by focus4chumps
remember kids, its easy to win the thread

1-make outlandish claim
2-cite ridiculously bias misinformation site.
3-declair that burden of proof does NOT lie with the one who asserted the claim.

you could be a local celebrity at the conspiracy forum, bro

1. It is not an outlandish claim. Covered in just about any health related undergraduate degrees.

2. Cited more than one.

But here is another since you are literally shitting yourself over the original source:

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/puberty.htm

(Didn't take much google searching to find yet another source. It's fairly common knowledge among medical professionals. I guess this doesn't fit with some weird agenda you have? mwhahaha

3. Already provided 2 different sources of proof before this post. U mad?






So why did it make your panties in a bunch, again?



Remember, kids, if you want to troll, contradict and then pretend you do not have to back it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon

1. It is not an outlandish claim. Covered in just about any health related undergraduate degrees.

oh thank heavens. here i was all worried that you were making a complete dunce of yourself. so i guess you can post one of many many valid and easily found references - to support the claim that black children mature earlier than white children - and in turn shut me up proper. i'll be waiting.

:edit: researching your new source.

:edit2:
(of cited article)
source 1 & 2: Error 404 - Not Found
http://www.center4policy.org/children9.html
source 3:
http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtml



fact is not fact. wanna try again?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh thank heavens. here i was all worried that you were making a complete dunce of yourself. so i guess you can post one of many many valid and easily found references - to support the claim that black children mature earlier than white children - and in turn shut me up proper. i'll be waiting.

K.

Did.

Twice, excluding the obviously bias source.




Now rage at me. Follow every single post of mine until you can find a mistake to get back at me for delivering the pwn in two different threads over the last few days. (is that why you are mad?)



Come on: I am waiting for that chest thumping and grunting from you. I know you have been raging and boiling. Surely you won't just let this affront to your massive ego stand? How dare dadudemon show you how ignorant you are twice in such a short period of time.

apologies for the late edits. please review the quoted post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just because it comes from a clearly bias source, does not mean it is wrong

This is very true but a biased source means should be a trigger for skepticism (all arguments sound good in isolation) and, for rhetorical reasons, its best to avoid that kind of source all together. I'm inclined to agree with you about that particular page from the site, for the most part it doesn't seem that off base.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is very true but a biased source means should be a trigger for skepticism (all arguments sound good in isolation) and, for rhetorical reasons, its best to avoid that kind of source all together. I'm inclined to agree with you about that particular page from the site, for the most part it doesn't seem that off base.

I agree. But it was only to function as a catalyst. It was not a primary source and those reading it, if they wanted more information, would be tempted to google search. This is why I stated, "first result" or some shit. It indicates that there is much more information on that topic than the superficial bias source.

I had to go five links down to find the one from the University Michigan, though.



Originally posted by rudester
Just because she is termed black doesnt mean she is directly from africa stupid...

Uhhh....

thats right. dodge

Originally posted by focus4chumps
apologies for the late edits. please review the quoted post.

Nothing new to add. You're still wrong.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
:edit: researching your new source.

:edit2:
(of cited article)
source 1 & 2: Error 404 - Not Found
http://www.center4policy.org/children9.html
source 3:
http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtml



fact is not fact. wanna try again?

It does not matter that the primary research information is now 404'd: it comes from a very credible university.

I will not do any more searching for you.


Contradict the information presented if you disagree with it. Otherwise, suck it.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
thats right. dodge

It's quite amusing that you've changed your tune since I called your MO out. This is the "pretend to be calm but I'm raging and boiling on the inside" posting style that you pull. Nothing new.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. But it was only to function as a catalyst. It was not a primary source and those reading it, if they wanted more information, would be tempted to google search. This is why I stated, "first result" or some shit. It indicates that there is much more information on that topic than the superficial bias source.

I had to go five links down to find the one from the University Michigan, though.





Uhhh....

I said, "directly" I'm sure she has generations of her ancestors being here, so her gene pool has been mixed around.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nothing new to add. You're still wrong.



It does not matter that the primary research information is now 404'd: it comes from a very credible university.

I will not do any more searching for you.


Contradict the information presented if you disagree with it. Otherwise, suck it.




It's quite amusing that you've changed your tune since I called your MO out. This is the "pretend to be calm but I'm raging and boiling on the inside" posting style that you pull. Nothing new.

hmmm...artful editing of my post? surely an honest mistake of oversight on your part. readily forgiven. lets just go ahead and try again:

http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtml

chumps: if environmental factors are causing black girls to mature faster the result is that black girls end up maturing faster

Her name is, E'Dena Hines who is now 27, which means she would have been 17 when they first... um... got together. Once Freeman's wife found out about their secret affair she filed for divorce, and now the Enquirer is claiming that once proceedings go through, he and Hines are set to wed. "


Hines is the granddaughter of Morgan's first wife, Jeanette Adair Bradshaw, whom he divorced in 1979; he and E'Dena are not related by blood. Morgan married Myrna Colley-Lee in 1984, but they split in 2010.

The actor's granddaughter Hines also refuted the reports Thursday, telling TMZ: "These stories about me and my grandfather are not only untrue, they are also hurtful to me and my family."



Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/morgan-freeman-im-not-marrying-my-step-granddaughter-2012124#ixzz1sDtKJqzC

-there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.

-secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.

i'll just go ahead and re-quote the boldfaced section of the author's suggestion of bias (author of the study in which ddm's link sited as evidence)



therefore, environmental concerns aside, it could be that pre-pubescabt black girls are more susceptible to medical concerns relating to puberty than white girls. there is also the fact the the study samples were only in north carolina.

what i see is that its equally possible that young black girls from north carolina, on average, are taken to the clinic for pathological conditions related to early puberty than white girls. does this prove the study wrong? not necessarily. however, is the study airtight? as even the author of the study which ddm cited states: NO

Originally posted by focus4chumps
hmmm...artful editing of my post? surely an honest mistake of oversight on your part. readily forgiven. lets just go ahead and try again:

http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtml

No, it was not artful editing on my part.


It was artful editing on your part:


"Further, the data suggest that the relative size of this accelerated population is greater in black girls than in white girls. Dramatic results include the finding that over 7% of 4 year old black girls showed some sign of pubertal development compared to less than 1% for white girls and by 8 years of age these numbers had risen to almost 50% of black girls and almost 15% for white girls. Finally, mean age at first menses was earlier in black vs white girls..."

"The authors discuss these results in the context of previous population based studies of female puberty and conclude that, although the age at first menses closely match historic data (back to 1948*), this study suggests that age at which breast development and pubic hair are first apparent is younger, especially among black girls, compared to previous studies."

*Which is why it is considered common knowledge in the medical community. It has been known for decades.

You not only proved my point, you.....................you just can't be taken seriously, at this point.

I mean, I do not know how else to address your trolling other than laughing at you and how hard you're trying to troll me. Are you really that upset over our conversation last week?

But, another first page result shows subsarharan African Women are sexually active at much younger ages than most of the world.

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/TABriefs/PGY_Brief26_SexualInitiation.pdf


You can definitely blame some of that on social effects but sociology shows us that the sexual practices in Sub-Sahara Africa are very diverse. So whence commeth these differences?



Also, the study's final conclusion (in the abstract) could have easily been addressed if they were as aware of medical science as I was (lol!):


http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/minority-health-tool-kit/AfrAm-fact-sheet.pdf

"Uninsured African Americans are less likely to receive preventive
care, screening services, and appropriate acute or chronic disease management, and they are more likely than insured individuals to have poorer overall health."

"Among African Americans, 34 percent report having no regular doctor, compared to 24 percent of whites."

"African Americans are also less likely than whites to visit a specialist, regardless of insurance status. Among insured African Americans, less than 20 percent had visited a specialist in 2003, compared to 27 percent of insured whites. Among the uninsured, 21 percent of African Americans had visited a specialist, compared to nearly 30 percent of whites."


How come they did not know that? How come they were not aware that African Americans are less likely to see the doctor for problems, especially if they are uninsured? If anything, the data is skewed in favor of a younger pubescence in African American girls.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.

secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.

i'll just go ahead and re-quote the boldfaced section of the author's suggestion of bias (author of the study in which ddm's link sited as evidence)

does this prove the study wrong? not necessarily

is the study airtight? as even the author of the study which ddm cited states: NO

Please.

It is fairly airtight and this phenomena has been common knowledge in the medical community for decades.

You were wrong. Move on.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
therefore, environmental concerns aside, it could be that pre-pubescabt black girls are more susceptible to medical concerns relating to puberty than white girls. there is also the fact the the study samples were only in north carolina.

what i see is proof that young black girls from north carolina, on average, are taken to the clinic for pathological conditions related to early puberty than white girls.

OMG! hahaha

You are a crazy person.

"More susceptible to medical concerns". No, the exact opposite is true. They go to the doctor less and they go to specialists less.

What you see is confirmation that menstration starts sooner, on average, in African Americans girls than other race demographics. What you also see is that the data is possibly skewed and the age that this occurs may even be sooner because we are missing even more samples from the particularly poor and uninsured.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
chumps: if environmental factors are causing black girls to mature faster the result is that black girls end up maturing faster

That seems to be the case. There are probably biological factors, as well, at play. It cannot all be blamed on environment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please.

It is fairly airtight and this phenomena has been common knowledge in the medical community for decades.

You were wrong. Move on.




dodge, repeat dubious study as fact , win.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please.

It is fairly airtight and this phenomena has been common knowledge in the medical community for decades.

by calling the study "airtight" you are contradicting the authors of the study


oh, dadudemon

Originally posted by focus4chumps
dodge, repeat dubious study as fact , win.

This is my line.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
by calling the study "airtight" you are contradicting the authors of the study


oh, dadudemon


"the study", huh?


It = "this phenomena"


this phenomena = puberty happens sooner in Sub-Saharan African females than other race demographics.


At not point did I directly refer to that particular study with the words "it" and "this phenomena".


Additionally, I helped you understand the researchers lack of information with their disclaimer at the end of their study.



So, basically this: you have the evidence. You are aware of the evidence. Yet, you deny it still.

-you cite an "airtight" study to support your claim of 'common knowledge' aka fact.

-authors of said study admits bias data.



all of your distractive tactics and bait-and-switch context doesnt change this simple and direct point we have arrived to.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
-you cite an "airtight" study to support your claim of 'common knowledge' aka fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"the study", huh?


It = "this phenomena"


this phenomena = puberty happens sooner in Sub-Saharan African females than other race demographics.


At not point did I directly refer to that particular study with the words "it" and "this phenomena".

Originally posted by focus4chumps
-authors of said study admits bias data.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...I helped you understand the researchers lack of information with their disclaimer at the end of their study.




Originally posted by focus4chumps
all of your distractive tactics and bait-and-switch context doesnt change this simple and direct point we have arrived to.

This is obviously a dodge. Continue to pretend my points are something they are not.


It is not as though I forgot how you argue. You'll continue to argue until you can find a single point to "catch" me on and then you run with it. You almost thought you had one with the white-supremacist link. Then you thought you had me with the related study. THEN you thought you had me with the "this study" approach. Now...you're just crying because you did not have me at any point at all.


Keep moving the topic. Keep moving the bar. You'll eventually "get me" with some sort of rhetoric.

you would love to "move on" as you consistently plead.

well, i stated your dilemma in its most simplified form. since unlike you i dont intend to spend the day quoting myself, i suppose we will move on, despite your embarrassing unsubstantiated claim of common medical fact.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you would love to "move on" as you consistently plead.

I would? Where did I state that?

I am more than happy to continue talking in circles with you as you prove more and more than your trolly vendetta against me continues to fail. It at least provides amusement.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well, i stated your dilemma in its most simplified form.

And I stated why you failed to state where there was actually a dilemma. All you did was show me that you wanted me to be wrong about something because a quote come from a no-so-credible source. When you found out it was right, you rage shit-posted. There was no gaps or wiggle room for you to fall into.


You should be more careful next time you decide to troll me. You're better off pretending I am on steroids and I abuse my cats and kids.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
since unlike you i dont intend to spend the day quoting myself, i suppose we will move on, despite your embarrassing unsubstantiated claim of common medical fact.

You certainly quoted yourself 2 or 3 times...it was a quote of a quote. But, you still did so.


And, again, I not only proved it, you proved it as well.

"BUT! SEE HERE! It has a disclaimer!"

I may have misrepresented Simpson... He is either all about white christianity, or he is so racist that he believes christianity to be a thing the Jews forced upon white people to enslave them.

tbh, I don't care to read enough hate to get it right

its ok. he didnt read it either.

Originally posted by inimalist
Take some time with the references.

No thank you. I do not want to do that. I figure a single citing from a questionable source was more than enough to persuade Omega Vision to seek out more information: not take my word for it especially since I used a white supremacist website (that should be a red flag to anyone).

I read that page a total of 10 seconds and that is about as long as it took for me to copy and paste.


Edit - Additionally, it seemed Omega Vision's original question was one of "that's racist...and I'm skeptical". I was more than happy to oblige with something from a racist website to confirm his suspicions. It was for his benefit and lulz.

Instead, it turned into a troll-fest from P...Mr. Chumps.



More on that subject, though: I do not think it is entirely environmental. I personally hold that some of it is genetic. I do not have any studies other than the obvious ones. But those do not show that "blacks" sexually mature faster than other races due to a genetic cause...just that they sexually mature faster.

Originally posted by inimalist
In terms of intellectual honesty, it sits roughly in the same place as a highschool essay about a literary work written after only skimming the Crib's notes.

No, it's a racist website that cherry-picks all it's "facts" for the sole purpose of making whites look better than blacks.

Also, I read somewhere else that the maturing of Sub-Sarahan Africans makes them MORE intelligent at a younger age: the direct opposite of what the site claims.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
its ok. he didnt read it either.

You're correct: I only "ctrl+f" for the information I wanted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figure a single citing from a questionable source was more than enough to persuade Omega Vision to seek out more information: not take my word for it especially since I used a white supremacist website (that should be a red flag to anyone).

ah there, you see? he posted a link to a racist site as a source on purpose...to instruct others on the value of researching sources.

http://www.kidminister.org/images/clown_juggling_lg_clr.gif

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ah there, you see? he posted a link to a racist site as a source on purpose...

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
to instruct others on the value of researching sources.


No, this is not correct.

It was to spur discussion and also confirm OV's implied suspicions. The conversation would have gone much more quickly and less drama-ish if you were not around, tbh. You really do shit up every conversation you are in with your smug attitude and trolling. But you knew that...because you told me that off the boards.

Edit - the derp smilie is not working.


Well, derpy derpy do.

see, if i was confronted with the choice of retracting a ridiculous post or spending all day making a wild ass of myself, i might choose the former and just say "oops i should have looked into that more".

Originally posted by focus4chumps
see, if i was confronted with the choice of retracting a ridiculous post or spending all day making a wild ass of myself, i might choose the former and just say "oops i should have looked into that more".

No, I already addressed that avenue, as well: just because it showed up on a bias website, does not mean it was wrong. It turns out that what I had said was not wrong. I cherry-picked what information I wanted from that site, as well: obviously, I am not going to support the "IQ" bullshit agenda they were trying to push. There are many other problems on that website and inimalist pointed out a few.

But, those were not the items of interest, now were they?




See, no matter which angle you approach this topic from, you still come off as a whiner looking for something to troll.


I am off of work, today, playing video games. Kids are at school. Wife is entertaining her parents at her sister's house. Nothing to do but play Saints Row the Third and allow a troll to troll me (it is still entertaining). Go over to GS Chat: you can troll me there, too.

no, dadudemon. cool stories aside, it all went down like this:

1-you asserted a questionable and theoretical claim, and called it a fact.

2-when called on it you ran to google and searched, posting the first link you found as proof, without even reading it.

3-when you were called out on that, you finally found a reputable study to source, and yet even the authors of that study pointed out that there was bias in the data collected.

4-you remain incorrect on your asserted claim.
that claim, that its common medical knowledge that black girls hit puberty on average sooner than white girls.









you know what you did. just retract the statement. maybe reword it. "studies suggest that...etc". its an easy mistake to make. just admit it. i wont gloat. i might even have a shred of respect for you for showing a glimmer of integrity, finally.

if not, i assure you that you look ridiculous in front of everyone right now.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, dadudemon. cool stories aside, it all went down like this:

1-you asserted a questionable and theoretical claim, and called it fact.

2-when called on it you ran to google and searched, posting the first link you found as proof, without even reading it.

3-when you were called out on that, you finally found a reputable study to source, and yet even the authors of that study pointed out that there was bias in the data collected.

4-you remain incorrect on your asserted claim.
that claim, that its common medical knowledge that black girls hit puberty on average sooner than white girls.




No, Chumps, it went down like this:


1. I pointed out out Sub-Sarahan Africans sexually mature, faster, compared to other races.

2. Omega wanted clarification because I think he thought it was racist.

3. I cited a racist source specifically for HIS lulz (not for you to troll the thread).

4. You shit yourself because you thought "I got him, this time! TROLL TIEM!"

5. You shit yourself a second time when you realized I wasn't wrong.

6. You trolled harder and harder only to be routed each attempt.

7. You rage quit when you discovered that you were wrong on all fronts and you even failed to wiggle out of being wrong by harping on the disclaimer as some sort of trump card.

8. You're still wrong and fuming. Looking for more reasons to try and "get me" so you can feel some sort of minor victory.




Originally posted by focus4chumps
its the nature of a child to repeatedly lie until they manage to convince themselves of the lie, is it not?


I am not into over-the-counter pop-psychology. But, yes, you could be right so I suggest you stop trying to convince yourself of your lies.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
you know what you did. just retract the statement. maybe reword it. "studies suggest that...etc". its an easy mistake to make. just admit it. i wont gloat. i might even have a shred of respect for you for showing a glimmer of integrity, finally.

if not, i assure you that you look ridiculous in front of everyone right now.

Nice edit.

No, you know what you did. I do not need any "shred of integrity" from you. Nor do I need your respect. However, you do need mine (I do not know why).

It was not a mistake nor is it an easy one to make when I tried to find it.

I assure you, I do not look ridiculous in the slightest. This is also an old MO of yours: claim the other looks stupid/ridiculous in front of others in hope of getting a bandwagon going.


I can assure you: you look ridiculous with your failed troll attempts and your pathetic attempt at trying to be smug. It is not working. The part about "not have your coffee yet?" was especially lulz worthy. Elementary school students could probably do better. An old poster that used to frequent KMC who went by PVS was really good at the one-line zingers. If he were around, he might have delivered some hilarity.

apologies again for the late edit. i thought the child psychology comment was too harsh, so i deleted it. anyway, since you missed it:

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you know what you did. just retract the statement. maybe reword it. "studies suggest that...etc". its an easy mistake to make. just admit it. i wont gloat. i might even have a shred of respect for you for showing a glimmer of integrity, finally.

if not, i assure you that you look ridiculous in front of everyone right now.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
apologies again for the late edit. i thought the child psychology comment was too harsh, so i deleted it. anyway, since you missed it:

I'm just too fast for you: already addressed your fail, here, as well.



What else do you have?


Hey, Chumps:


Blacks sexually mature faster than whites, on average.

Blacks get pregnant sooner than whites, on average.

Blacks have more sexual partners before 18, on average.

Blacks have more STDs than any other race demographic, on average.



Come at me.

"one study suggests that blacks sexually mature faster than whites, on average. *insert link to NON-white supremacist site*"

this works fine. illustrates that its not factual. its fine.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Blacks sexually mature faster than whites, on average.

Blacks get pregnant sooner than whites, on average.

Blacks have more sexual partners before 18, on average.

Blacks have more STDs than any other race demographic, on average.



Come at me.

:edit: interesting claims you added. my curiosity on the topic is piqued. now please provide your sources? not that im suggesting they are wrong. only that these are bold and controversial assertions. when dropping bombs like that you should be ready to back it up.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
1-you asserted a questionable and theoretical claim, and called it a fact.

So, there is this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16492435



and this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509562



Though, this study suggests the difference may be environmental, as once "covariates" were removed from the statistical analysis (do you know regression models?) there was no difference between race and ouberty onset:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20484344



The covariates in this case being:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2893293/?tool=pubmed

From what I can find on pubmed, it seems to be an accepted fact, though I doubt most researchers would claim it was genetic (and DDM has only made a soft genetic argument anyways).

I was certainly unable to find anyone questioning or providing evidence against the idea, though I do recommend you look through what Pubmed might have.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
"one study suggests that blacks sexually mature faster than whites, on average. *insert link to NON-white supremacist site*"

this works fine. illustrates that its not factual. its fine.

I never said "one study". I love your strawman tactics: so simplistic and textbook.

Also, the naughty site was not the one that conducted the study. Make sure you don't skew the facts.

And now you're just ignoring the study YOU brought up. Pretend it didn't happen, sir. Pretend it never took place.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
:edit: interesting claims you added. my curiosity on the topic is piqued. now please provide your sources? not that im suggesting they are wrong. only that these are bold and controversial assertions. when dropping bombs like that you should be ready to back it up.

lol

Nope. I am not going to back any of it up with any studies or reports, anywhere.

Do you disagree with the information? If so, prove me wrong.

inb4 "burden of proof" whining.


I made claims. Do you think they are wrong? If so, prove that they are wrong by citing sources that contradict that information. That's if you actually care.

I am giving you ample opportunity to "own" me, and "prove how dumb" I am. Go ahead: do so if you want.

Now what?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
:edit: interesting claims you added. my curiosity on the topic is piqued. now please provide your sources? not that im suggesting they are wrong. only that these are bold and controversial assertions. when dropping bombs like that you should be ready to back it up.

afaik none of those are incorrect and aren't even really controversial...

It would be like saying black people go to jail more often than whites.

I think you might be conflating simple facts with value judgements

ddm, you only provided one valid study. (and a white supremacist site if you want that to count as 2). the authors of that study admitted a bias in the method of collecting data.

but no matter. inimalist has done your homework (out of pity?).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
inimalist has done your homework (out of pity?).

technically I did both of your homework, out of a sheer desire to actually have science brought up in a scientific discussion

Originally posted by focus4chumps
the authors of that study admitted a bias in the method of collecting data.

can you name a study where there are no biases in data selection?

how was it my homework to support or refute dadudemon's asserted claim? all i did was question his evidence.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
how was it my homework to support or refute dadudemon's asserted claim? all i did was question his evidence.

lol

without looking anything up for yourself

It took me 5 min on pubmed to find a reliable answer. Burden of proof or not, that shows a fairly impressive lack of willingness to verify what you think is right.

I mean, regardless of who should be proving a point, I tend to look things up so that I know what is true...

or can at least defend my position better than repeating "sampling bias" over and over

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

without looking anything up for yourself

It took me 5 min on pubmed to find a reliable answer. Burden of proof or not, that shows a fairly impressive lack of willingness to verify what you think is right.

I mean, regardless of who should be proving a point, I tend to look things up so that I know what is true...

or can at least defend my position better than repeating "sampling bias" over and over

yeah, repeating a valid refutal of evidence-as-fact makes it false.

would you really sacrifice your own integrity just to white knight your friend?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
yeah, repeating a valid refutal of evidence-as-fact makes it false.

can you name a single study that has no issue with sampling bias?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
would you really sacrifice your own integrity just to white knight your friend?

I'm quite confident in the appraisals anyone who reads this thread will make of my integrity, though I'm glad you care.

white knight? awwww, precious, do you think we are ganging up now?

FFS, inimalist. You ruined everything. facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
From what I can find on pubmed, it seems to be an accepted fact, though I doubt most researchers would claim it was genetic (and DDM has only made a soft genetic argument anyways).

I was certainly unable to find anyone questioning or providing evidence against the idea, though I do recommend you look through what Pubmed might have.

While I do appreciate you citing more studies, I did not want to "feed the trolls". You know from our past medical-related arguments, that I flock to pubmed like it's the bible. Discussions or debates with Chumps are never serious: it is just a pissing match. Basically, I was avoiding any serious/direct source from Chumps to not give him the satisfaction of making me do something: you took that from me. He KNOWS I am right and is just trolling. Now I do not have the satisfaction of not having "fed the trolls". Well, I guess I do since you cited but I did not want vindication. I was happy leaving the original source as something awful and another source with a broken link (frustrating Chumps troll demands).

His vendetta against me is personal and he has voiced such off the boards. He only needed one credible source (he provided it...lol). From there, the discussion should have ended unless he provided another, contradictory, study. He did not do so. He did not do so because he was just trolling.



And, yes, I pointed out earlier today that "environment" seems to impact when puberty starts. I believe I linked it to stress (I cannot remember what I said on the topic).

I also think that those with strong Sub-Saharan African ancestry also sexually mature sooner for partially genetic reasons. Then there is the idea that hotter climates cause the onset of puberty, sooner: I am not sure about this last part. I read, a few years ago, that the reason African Americans still carry with them an earlier arrival of puberty is due to their hotter climate origins. If that is true then that would lend a "genetic" cause to a sooner menstruation. That would not be final, but it would still be applicable to the point.

he quoted but one study with a sharp sampling bias and called it fact. you rushed in and rescued him with a body of study that he should have researched himself and then attempt to blame me for his fumble.

so yes, it is obvious white knighting. and yes it is precious.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
he quoted but one study with a sharp sampling bias and called it fact. you rushed in and rescued him with a body of study that he should have researched himself and then attempt to blame me for his fumble.

so yes, it is obvious white knighting. and yes it is precious.

???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

how you can possibly see my actions as attempting to blame you for his mistakes...

clearly you are the victim here. big bad inimalist holds you to a basic standard of looking up data to back up what you post, golly gee willickers!

Originally posted by dadudemon
FFS, inimalist. You ruined everything. facepalm

me and science are tight, can't let that stuff slide

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ddm, you only provided one valid study. (and a white supremacist site if you want that to count as 2). the authors of that study admitted a bias in the method of collecting data.

but no matter. inimalist has done your homework (out of pity?).

Interesting take.

IMO, I provided no studies. I do not remember citing any studies, directly.

I provided 2 or 3 sources that discussed studies but I do not remember posting a link to any study.

Keep in mind that I did beacon you to talk with me outside of KMC, twice. Do you know why?

Originally posted by inimalist
afaik none of those are incorrect and aren't even really controversial...

It would be like saying black people go to jail more often than whites.

I think you might be conflating simple facts with value judgements

That might be obvious to you, but not to Chumps. They are controversial statements to knee-jerking liberals.


Originally posted by inimalist
I'm quite confident in the appraisals anyone who reads this thread will make of my integrity, though I'm glad you care.

white knight? awwww, precious, do you think we are ganging up now?

I do not believe he is aware of how colorful our debates have gotten in the past. You would be one of the last people I would expect to "white knight" me in a discussion.

Originally posted by inimalist
???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

See...I ****in' knew it.


Chumps, if you needed any sort of evidence that inimalist is NOT in my corner...

Originally posted by inimalist
???

I spent the better part of my morning researching a massive post with the specific intention of discrediting something DDM posted...

how you can possibly see my actions as attempting to blame you for his mistakes...

clearly you are the victim here. big bad inimalist holds you to a basic standard of looking up data to back up what you post, golly gee willickers!

when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

your contempt is transparent, as you (deliberately?) still fail to see that i made no claim either for or against the idea that blacks mature quicker than whites. i refuted ddm's lazy evidence gathering and flailing about.

now quick, post another snippy comment with baseless assertions about me, in order to prove that you are totally not emotionally invested in this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not believe he is aware of how colorful our debates of gotten in the past. You would be one of the last people I would expect to "white knight" me in a discussion.

no, I almost wrote in something about that as well

you are cool, but I really don't see myself swooping in to rescue you from... God, I don't even get the analogy.

Seems more like a cognitive bias in chumps to see any disagreement as a coordinated strike. Telltale symptom of paranoid delusion. If chumps is in the 15-25 year old, male, range, I'd suggest he be on the lookout for other signs of schizophrenia. That is the demographic range when that type of stuff shows up.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

This seems conclusive enough, depending on how pedantic you want to get (and certainly they are definitive statements that you could have verified with a simple Pubmed search ):

Originally posted by focus4chumps
-there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.

-secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.

also, I never said you claimed the fact was wrong, simply that you weren't backing up things you were in fact claiming.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
your contempt is transparent, as you (deliberately?) still fail to see that i made no claim either for or against the idea that blacks mature quicker than whites. i refuted ddm's lazy evidence gathering and flailing about.

yes, you refuted it based on no knowledge you had. Like I said, you can claim "burden of proof" all you want, and if that makes you feel like you have put in the requisite effort to know things, hey, cool, don't let my standards make you feel bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I almost wrote in something about that as well

you are cool, but I really don't see myself swooping in to rescue you from... God, I don't even get the analogy.

Seems more like a cognitive bias in chumps to see any disagreement as a coordinated strike. Telltale symptom of paranoid delusion. If chumps is in the 15-25 year old, male, range, I'd suggest he be on the lookout for other signs of schizophrenia. That is the demographic range when that type of stuff shows up.


I do not like this type of commentary from you: the moment when you bring out your psychology tools. Put that shit away. .


Yes, I jest...


but...no...for real...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not like this type of commentary from you: the moment when you bring out your psychology tools. Put that shit away. .


Yes, I jest...


but...no...for real...

its a joke

or... no, wait... I'm going to start a new career diagnosing people online

Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i claim that the point was wrong? oh wait. i didnt.

My mistake: I was under the impression that you were saying it was wrong mostly because I posted words painting your position as such and I did not get corrected. I still consider "no differences between the races" to still be a positive assertion: you did make that assertion.

If that is the case, you still were burdened with backing up such a claim if you took the conversation as serious business (I do not believe you ever did).

Originally posted by inimalist
its a joke

or... no, wait... I'm going to start a new career diagnosing people online

There's no way I can tell. You could make a bunch of shit up and as long as it vaguely checked out, most of us would not know the wiser. Don't you realize how much power you have over laymen? I was right there...ready to believe that shit.


Edit - Oh...right. You mentioned that very same fact in the Atheism thread: the willingness to believe more readily with a college education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's no way I can tell. You could make a bunch of shit up and as long as it vaguely checked out, most of us would not know the wiser. Don't you realize how much power you have over laymen? I was right there...ready to believe that shit.

I care too much about the truth though. also, i'm not even close to a clinician, my opinion on that kind of stuff is little better than an informed layman.

to be fair though, most of what I said was true (the range is closer to 18-25, I was trying to be inclusive of a range I suspected focus fell into), it is simply that diagnosing someone as "paranoid delusional" over a message board is fairly sloppy

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Oh...right. You mentioned that very same fact in the Atheism thread: the willingness to believe more readily with a college education.

oh ya, its pretty bad. I know I am able to make arguments good enough to convince myself of whatever I want. I do my best to go out of my way to be increasingly skeptical of things that validate what I believe, even moreso than things I disagree with entirely. Obviously it isn't always possible, but it is an attempt.

That said, oh ya, having an education in psych certainly has convinced me I know stuff about psych and that people should trust my opinion... its like the ultimate feeling of futility, I know how bad cognitive biases can be but I am powerless to do anything about them

Originally posted by inimalist
This seems conclusive enough, depending on how pedantic you want to get (and certainly they are definitive statements that you could have verified with a simple Pubmed search ):

i was hasty in that post and did not intend those points as absolute statements. the intended context was in conclusion to his sited source. however as i was overly eager and clumsy in that post, so i stand corrected and retract that statement, in its form.

with that aside, i think you already suspected this.






Originally posted by inimalist
also, I never said you claimed the fact was wrong, simply that you weren't backing up things you were in fact claiming.

again, i was not claiming anything. i was refuting cited evidence.




Originally posted by inimalist
yes, you refuted it based on no knowledge you had. Like I said, you can claim "burden of proof" all you want, and if that makes you feel like you have put in the requisite effort to know things, hey, cool, don't let my standards make you feel bad.

burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality. deal with it?

sure, and you refuted his point wrongly, because you couldn't be asked to take 2 min to look it up.

I don't disagree, burden of proof was on DDM. If that, to you, justifies contending his point from a position of total ignorance, fine. I expect much more of myself (as is demonstrated in this thread, where I have settled at least 2 questions even though the burden of proof was never mine), but I can't set standards for you.

If you have met what you think is an appropriate standard of knowledge to refute someone's point, then I cannot judge, other than to say it falls quite short of my own standards, for reasons I have outlined (one of these being the fact you turned out to be wrong on a very easy to verify point).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i was hasty in that post and did not intend those points as absolute statements. the intended context was in conclusion to his sited source. however as i was overly eager and clumsy in that post, so i stand corrected and retract that statement, in its form.

with that aside, i think you already suspected this.

I know this was directed at inimalist, but:

Very well. My bad. To me, it was quite obvious you made a positive assertion/claim and you only needed to prove it to contradict me. I was relatively satisfied that you had done so (that you proved my point) with the study you cited and wanted to leave it at that....including the disclaimer you kept harping on at the end.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim to prove it. saying "oh stop it you silly nilly!" does not alter this reality.

Not always.

It is in the definition, at times, of what is being claimed. Negative claims sometimes require proof.


"Global warming is false."

That's a negative claim. However, one would have to prove, with a very complicated thermodynamic system that did not extend beyond this solar system, that it is false. They do so by making a positive claim: global mean temperatures are in normal ranges with no loss or gaining of energy in another portion of the system.


On the surface, it is a rejection of a positive claim. However, it is also a positive claim.


Both parties involved would need to prove their position:

Mean temperatures and/or the related systems are fairly even OR

Mean temperatures and/or ther related systems are showing a positive increase in heat related energy.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, and you refuted his point wrongly, because you couldn't be asked to take 2 min to look it up.

I don't disagree, burden of proof was on DDM. If that, to you, justifies contending his point from a position of total ignorance, fine. I expect much more of myself (as is demonstrated in this thread, where I have settled at least 2 questions even though the burden of proof was never mine), but I can't set standards for you.

If you have met what you think is an appropriate standard of knowledge to refute someone's point, then I cannot judge, other than to say it falls quite short of my own standards, for reasons I have outlined (one of these being the fact you turned out to be wrong on a very easy to verify point).

well you obviously don't agree as you are attempting to amend the rule. your personal standards do not play into this.

and again, avoiding a retraction (generously given considering its painfully obvious context) in order to continue hammering at a false accusation (that i made an opposing claim to the theory, as opposed to simply thwarting stated evidence) is a sign of pettiness.

dude, I'm clearly saying if you have no issues with your standards, that is both fine and your prerogative. I'm not trying to change anything, merely suggesting I demand better than the absolute minimum from myself, but really, I can't say much if that is what you expect from yourself.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and again, avoiding a retraction (generously given considering its painfully obvious context) in order to continue hammering at a false accusation (that i made an opposing claim to the theory, as opposed to simply thwarting stated evidence) is a sign of pettiness.


hysterical

You should have just taken one of my requests to go to GS Chat.


You have no idea how hard it was finding a credible website with a broken link.

if that it truly your position then its appreciated. forgive my defensive posture but its been a rather combative and thoroughly illogical thread. it was at the point where ddm claimed to have intended to post a white supremacist link, to teach us a lesson on research, that i abandoned all hope of sanity and reason here.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
if that it truly your position then its appreciated. forgive my defensive posture but its been a rather combative and thoroughly illogical thread. it was at the point where ddm claimed to have intended to post a white supremacist link, to teach us a lesson on research, that i abandoned all hope of sanity and reason here.

You mean the point where you realized your game was up, right?

Yeah, thought so. Now about Freeman...

ddm, while i too subscribe to the philosophy of "perception is reality", you take it way too far. hint: you actually did make a laughable public spectacle of yourself today.

yeah about morgan freeman. last word herp derp.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ddm, while i too subscribe to the philosophy of "perception is reality", you take it way too far. hint: you actually did make a laughable public spectacle of yourself today.

yeah about morgan freeman. last word herp derp.

So you're aloud to retract statements quite arbitrarily when it shows you were clearly wrong on multiple fronts but I am not allowed to be an ass to Omega Vision?

Which makes more sense to you and which one shows who made a spectacle of themselves?

what happened to this, friend?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Yeah, thought so. Now about Freeman...

Originally posted by focus4chumps
what happened to this, friend?

hahahahaha

Well done.


Why did you not come over to GS Chat when I invited you?



Morgan Freeman wins.


But, the public sees that you and I are just pals, in the end. Guess that made the game less fun, huh? "They are just buds...having a friendly argument. Nothing to see here."

I guess someone had to fill the void RJ left in my KMC posting heart.

lets recap

Originally posted by dadudemon
No thank you. I do not want to do that. I figure a single citing from a questionable source was more than enough to persuade Omega Vision to seek out more information: not take my word for it especially since I used a white supremacist website (that should be a red flag to anyone).

vJXU7EVXs2A

Originally posted by focus4chumps
gs? i remember rj, but whats gs?

You're right. My bad.

Wait so 17 is legal in the U.S? Then why was there a big deal about the whole statutory rape of a minor deal that was brought up with the whole Justin Bieber's potentially being a dad thing?

I'm confused now

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Wait so 17 is legal in the U.S? Then why was there a big deal about the whole statutory rape of a minor deal that was brought up with the whole Justin Bieber's potentially being a dad thing?

I'm confused now

Not all states are set at 18. Not all are set at 17. I think there is conditionals at even age 16.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Wait so 17 is legal in the U.S? Then why was there a big deal about the whole statutory rape of a minor deal that was brought up with the whole Justin Bieber's potentially being a dad thing?

I'm confused now

In most of the US 16 or 17 is the age of consent. In California 18 is the age of consent. A tremendous amount of American media comes from California.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Is she hot?
Originally posted by Robtard
http://images.starpulse.com/pictures/2008/07/15/previews/Morgan%20Freeman%20and%20Granddaughter-SGY-001686.jpg
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican



That made me laugh so hard


Mmm Morgan Freeman and step-granddaughter... Well, whatever floats his boat I guess. >___>
Edit: And her boat .____.

Can't be bothered to through pages of verbal jousting, but was DDM's claim that black-girls mature faster cos they're animals correct?

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't be bothered to through pages of verbal jousting, but was DDM's claim that black-girls mature faster cos they're animals correct?

But we are all animals. Oh ya, there are people who believe we are not animals, and when someone calls another person an animal it is considered to be an insult. I have to remind myself of these stupid things all the time.

CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING
CAN I JUSS SAY SOMETHING....

WHY WONT YOU LET ME SAY SOMETHING...

MORGAN FREEMAN IS 74 YEARS OLD, HE COULD DIE ANY DAY NOW AND HE'S SLEEPING WITH A 27 YEAR OLD??

WHO CARES IF HE IS AFRICAN BECAUSE THATS RACIST. WHO CARES IF SHES A GOLD DIGGER, HE IS A MAN FIRST AND HE IS GETTING F*

SO IF HE HAPPENS TO DIE, HE WILL DIE SMILEING

AND IF HE DIES AND ALL THE MONEY GOES TO HER

SHE DESERVED IT FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO f* A 70' YEAR OLD, WHO HAS OLD MAN BALLS..

THEE END.

Originally posted by Robtard
black-girls mature faster

yes

Originally posted by Robtard
cos they're animals

no

I am pretty sure Robtard was joking.

well, his original implication was brushed over:

Originally posted by dadudemon

Keep in mind, wakkawakkawakka, that pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent humans. This lady was probably not prepubescent at 17. Considering she was black, most likely, she sexually matured ahead of most American females.

ddm has a way of making a short and valid point and then typing a brain-dropping to punctuate it. if it was simply:

Originally posted by dadudemon

Keep in mind, wakkawakkawakka, that pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent humans. This lady was probably not prepubescent at 17. (full stop)

we would likely still be on page 4. instead he goes on to suggest that she was likely not prepubescent at 17 because she's black. considering the average age for the onset of puberty for girls is 9-10 years old....well...yeeeeah.

mason freeman is a freak

oh well

Originally posted by guy222
mason freeman is a freak

oh well

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1077620556/Dr-Steve-Brule_bigger.jpg

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well, his original implication was brushed over:



ddm has a way of making a short and valid point and then typing a brain-dropping to punctuate it.

Now now, don't try and libel me. You can do better than that.

You are definitely doing one of those strawman things again. Context is key. I do believe I had discussed a very specific reason for why I put the amendment at the end of my post. I had stated this before stating what you quoted:

Originally posted by dadudemon
One amendment: if you are not sexually developed at 17 (you look like you're 12 or something....which does happen), then being sexually attracted to that 17 year old would be pedophilia. Justifying it not being pedophilia just because of a number does not fly psychologically.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
we would likely still be on page 4. instead he goes on to suggest that she was likely not prepubescent at 17 because she's black. considering the average age for the onset of puberty for girls is 9-10 years old....well...yeeeeah.

Nah. It is decreasing the likelyhood that someone could use my own words against me: "But didn't you just say that some girls have not hit puberty (menarche) by 17?" Yes, I did say that, but it is even less likely since she is African American.



I am very glad you went down this path, Chumps.




Originally posted by focus4chumps
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1077620556/Dr-Steve-Brule_bigger.jpg

Wow. It's like you're stuck in the 80s being the archetypal highschool bully.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now now, don't try and libel me. You can do better than that.

i think you misspelled "quote".

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are definitely doing one of those strawman things again. Context is key. I do believe I had discussed a very specific reason for why I put the amendment at the end of my post. I had stated this before stating what you quoted:

you keep saying "strawman" but its clear that you dont know what it means.






Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. It is decreasing the likelyhood that someone could use my own words against me: "But didn't you just say that some girls have not hit puberty (menarche) by 17?" Yes, I did say that, but it is even less likely since she is African American.

see, you could have simply claimed that you meant to simply type "puberty", minus the "pre". the admittance of a believable simple and easily made error, saving face. but no.

so now you want to sell the idea that you were referring to the possibility of having the abnormality of delayed puberty is more frequent among white girls. fine then. i guess you have more homework to do TO GOOGLE!!!

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think you misspelled "quote".



you keep saying "strawman" but its clear that you dont know what it means.


No, I definitely know what it means. You misrepresented my argument and then argued against that misrepresentation. I don't think you know what logic is.






Originally posted by focus4chumps
see, you could have simply claimed that you meant to simply type "puberty", minus the "pre". the admittance of a believable simple and easily made error, saving face. but no.

Uh, no. That would not make sense.

Let me check to see if what you're saying is clear:

"Keep in mind, wakkawakkawakka, that pedophilia is a primary attraction to humans. This lady was probably not at 17. Considering she was black, most likely, she sexually matured ahead of most American females."

Nope, that doesn't make sense.


Well, you tried.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so now you want to sell the idea that you were referring to the possibility of having the abnormality of delayed puberty is more frequent among white girls. fine then. i guess you have more homework to do TO GOOGLE!!!

No. I did not claim that at all. You are are doing another strawman.


This is what I said:

"Nah. It is decreasing the likelyhood that someone could use my own words against me: "But didn't you just say that some girls have not hit puberty (menarche) by 17?" Yes, I did say that, but it is even less likely since she is African American."


Why? Because we know African Americans hit puberty earlier, on average. Why is that important?

Oh, because her not having hit puberty (menarche) by 17 "is even less likely since she is African American."


At this point, I think I can start requotting myself.

Get a room, you two...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get a room, you two...

We did. We need more lube. pained

Originally posted by dadudemon
We did. We need more lube. pained

I don't want to know...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I definitely know what it means. You misrepresented my argument and then argued against that misrepresentation. I don't think you know what logic is.








Uh, no. That would not make sense.

Let me check to see if what you're saying is clear:

"Keep in mind, wakkawakkawakka, that pedophilia is a primary attraction to humans. This lady was probably not at 17. Considering she was black, most likely, she sexually matured ahead of most American females."

Nope, that doesn't make sense.


Well, you tried.



No. I did not claim that at all. You are are doing another strawman.


This is what I said:

"Nah. It is decreasing the likelyhood that someone could use my own words against me: "But didn't you just say that some girls have not hit puberty (menarche) by 17?" Yes, I did say that, but it is even less likely since she is African American."


Why? Because we know African Americans hit puberty earlier, on average. Why is that important?

Oh, because her not having hit puberty (menarche) by 17 "is even less likely since she is African American."


At this point, I think I can start requotting myself.

first off, "menarche" means the 'first menstrual cycle'. it is not a synonym to 'puberty' but a product of it, which usually occurs long after the onset of puberty. look it up, and next time use a dictionary before trying to impress me with big words.

anyway, your argument is a non sequitur.
you concluded that the occurrences of 'delayed puberty' (an exclusive condition, with many exclusive causes) is directly correlated to the general averages of puberty age by race.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't want to know...

The lube's cos the anal cavity isn't good at self-lubricating in terms for sexual use.

Originally posted by Robtard
The lube's cos the anal cavity isn't good at self-lubricating in terms for sexual use.

The fact you know this is disturbing.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
first off, "menarche" means the 'first menstrual cycle'. it is not a synonym to 'puberty' but a product of it, which usually occurs long after the onset of puberty. look it up, and next time use a dictionary before trying to impress me with big words.

First off, I put menarche in the parenthesis to indicate at which portion of puberty I actually meant. That is your first interpretive mistake.

Secondly, I could use thelarche if I wanted to indicate tanner stage II as the point of when puberty starts. Since I was quite specific with menarche in parenthesis (that was for the benefit of those that wanted to be pedantic), I obviously did not mean tanner stage II because menarche can occur throughout the tanner stages (almost always on or after tanner stage II).

It is only due to your ignorance that you went down this path. In fact, everything you typed up is irrelevant to the point I actually made.

Like I said, you'll try and find something wrong with what I post because you hate it so much that you cannot get me with something.


Deal with it, Chumps: I am better than you. It happens. There are many people better than me. It's an uphill battle to try and be better than someone because there is always a bigger fish. Get over yourself: there's plenty of things to focus on that are more fulfilling.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
anyway, your argument is a non sequitur.
you concluded that the occurrences of 'delayed puberty' (an exclusive condition, with many exclusive causes) is directly correlated to the general averages of puberty age by race.


No. I did not claim that at all. You are are doing another strawman.


This is what I said:

"Nah. It is decreasing the likelyhood that someone could use my own words against me: "But didn't you just say that some girls have not hit puberty (menarche) by 17?" Yes, I did say that, but it is even less likely since she is African American."


Why? Because we know African Americans hit puberty earlier, on average. Why is that important?

Oh, because her not having hit puberty (menarche) by 17 "is even less likely since she is African American."