Dasa and the thought police

Dasa and the thought police

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
You would seek to pass off the serious sexual assaults that Bill Cosby is accused of as having been "infidelities"? His alleged offences include drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, and child sexual abuse. Why would you refer to such acts as merely "infidelities"?
What would you collectively describe them as?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What would you collectively describe them as?
Certainly not "infidelities". Drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, and child sexual abuse are serious sex crimes.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you suggesting that the site administration banned Duchess64 for merely thinking?
No, who would make such a ludicrous suggestion? Dasa wasn't banned "for merely thinking". What utter nonsense to suggest such a thing. So, do you concede you have been hypocritical?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
Certainly not "infidelities". Drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, and child sexual abuse are serious sex crimes.
Yes and how would you describe them collectively. You have not said?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
No, who would make such a ludicrous suggestion? Dasa wasn't banned "for merely thinking". What utter nonsense to suggest such a thing. So, do you concede you have been hypocritical?
So why was Duchess64 banned then?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16
1 edit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes and how would you describe them collectively. You have not said?
Allegations of sex crimes.

In my previous post I did say: "Drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, and child sexual abuse are serious sex crimes."

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So why was Duchess64 banned then?
Presumably because someone alerted posts that they did not like and the moderators took action ~ as was the case with Dasa. However, the on-topic question here is: why are you not defending Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
Allegations of sex crimes.
Fine we shall call them allegations of sex crimes and not infidelities. Happy now?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fine we shall call them allegations of sex crimes and not infidelities. Happy now?
Why would you seek to pass off serious sex crimes as mere "infidelities"?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably because someone alerted posts that they did not like and the moderators took action ~ as was the case with Dasa. However, the on-topic question here is: why are you not defending Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?
So Duchess64 was banned because someone did not like them? Is that what you are saying?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16
1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
Why would you seek to pass off serious sex crimes as mere "infidelities"?
You dont think sex crimes are infidelities? How so? Do you see them as virtuous?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So Duchess64 was banned because someone did not like them? Is that what you are saying?
Presumably Duchess64 was banned because someone alerted posts and the moderators took action. The same happened to Dasa.

So why are you choosing not to defend Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You dont think sex crimes are infidelities? How so?
Accusing Bill Cosby of infidelities on one hand, and accusing him of serious sex crimes on the other, are two very different things, as you well know. You presumably chose your word carefully.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
11 May 16

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably Duchess64 was banned because someone alerted posts and the moderators took action. The same happened to Dasa.

So why are you choosing not to defend Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?
They baned them merely because someone did not like them and alerted thier posts is that what you are saying?

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
11 May 16

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They baned them merely because someone did not like them and alerted thier posts is that what you are saying?
In Dasa's case you chose to defend him but in Duchess64's case you are doing the opposite. It would be interesting to hear how you can explain this without demonstrating hypocrisy.