My my. Look at the length of this post ! Not sure why you have focussed on me here, but I have some time to try and parse this response. Lets see:
1. The cost of sexual assault is the same no matter who does it-that is the point and your attempt to create a double standard as to the moral behaviour of politicians and non politicians when it comes to imposing sex on someone is illogical. No Brown had no special moral obligation different than yours or mine when it comes to a private matter in his bed-room. His bed-room is not your arena for you to enter and tell him what he must do. The police and the law not you only get involved in his bed-room if he sexually assaulted someone-he did not so all your clucking is meaningless crap.
I think we have already said Brown didn't commit sexual assault. This is about the cost of inappropriate behaviour. The public will decide what is a private matter.
2. You claim to be both righteous and self righteous in your words. Here since you seem to be choking on that let me explain it for you:
source: BING
right·eous.
ADJECTIVE
1.(of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous:
self-right·eous.
ADJECTIVE
having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior:
Do me a favour save the righteous and self righteous attempts at trying to suggest you don't understand the difference.
Well you modified your description of me to the former. I have admitted inappropriate behaviour so I don't claim virtuosity in the regard of male behaviour.
3. You lectured me that: " a RIGHTEOUS person would never admit they sinned, and would look down on sinners"...then you went on to say and I quote:
"Nowhere did I "**** on brown". I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk."
The latter statement clearly indicates you continue to **** on Brown by saying and I quote again because you have a selective righteous memory: " he showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager".
That is what he did. It says nothing about my virtuosity to describe his actions.
You again prove my point as to what a sanctimonious blow hard you are. There is no evidence Brown "showed off his dick", that is your projection. Also your accusations he got someone drunk suggests he forced them to drink which is an out and out lie a total and utter lie.
You have no proof he forced alcohol on anyone yet you lie to make it seem as if he stalked a minor and poured alcohol down her throat.
That's the allegation. I am willing to hear his response. Also I didn't say he forced them to drink.
The more you respond, the more you illustrate why I challenge your false morally superior smug tone.
Then on top of it you just couldn't resist posing as righteous and self righteous yet again suggesting since you "confessed" on this forum it means you do not sin when you talk of Brown. What a phacking joke.
What did you confess to? Lol. You think if you come on this board and say you may have been a jack ass as a young man that presto you now are the pillar of moral truth and infallible source of when Brown should pull his **** out and with who? Hah.
If Dia thinks your intent is to defend women she needs to read your bilge in more detail Your just another man pulling out his pecker to Brown saying your pecker is better than his.
So if I understand you saint MH, you only pull your **** out at the appropriate time,-you never show it off-and you are in the position of commenting on Brown's pecker because you "confessed".
What a joke. What a sanctimonious attempt to justify being a holier than thou **** owner. Hah.
Yes, you are putting your
**** words in my mouth. Keep bellowing, though. It won't change what I did.
Get real. It will take more than a half assed ambiguous forum confession to make you moral judge of anyone. If you can not get that and if your disciples can't get that, be my guest start your religion-The Church of Non Showing Off **** Bearers. Knock yourselves out singing your song and turning me into your Satan. I welcome it.
I didn't judge Brown, I spoke only of the politics. I am not turning you into the devil. You are more like the Tasmanian Devil.
To me you are just another twisted clergy pervert posing as an authority on God's way.
You bet my constituency is different. It consists of people just like me and that young woman and Brown. We will and dolook to each other for understanding and a better way to communicate. We sure as hell do not need you and your clucking peacocks judging us before or after or during the fact.
Oh wow man that last sentence was like so weird man.
Agreed on the last sentence.
Yah the idea I would think we all need to speak about each other's mistakes in a non judgemental way oh wow man that's like weird. Why can't we crucify Brown right MH? Who you and your disciples crucify Brown? You-Saint MH?
You typify everything about we men and how we deal with our penises that we need to question.
Men and women, both of us for the exact same reasons, were born with the gift to make individual decisions as to how we deal with and control our bodies. I argue it should remain that way. The last thing I want is you and your perverted followers preaching to me or anyone.
Not sure why you are whirling about. I speak to the politics and my 'smug' phrasing is simply how Brown behaved, if given a spin to illustrate how it would appear to the morally righteous.
It only took me 10 minutes to respond to this, and that's not bad. Let's see if you come back with an even longer post claiming all the same things over and over again.