It's actually a scientific fact that women over the age of 30 face higher risk of pregnancy complications. That was the point made, unlike your attempt to remove statements from context. After age 30, it's also true that many women do become haggy. That's just reality. You seem to be the one taking personal offense. Is that perhaps because you think of yourself as a hag? It'd seem that I unintentionally struck a nerve. I don't know you. You could be a dude. Could be an AI bot. Don't know. Don't really care. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile
Thank you. Glad you finally have come around to accepting reality. That was the entire point of this logical exercise. So if by definition, this case didn't definitively prove the man in question to be a pedophile, then why are allowing clickbait articles alleging as such to be prominently promoted on these boards without having been properly researched and vetted? That's no better than the left and the MSM propaganda machine.
It’s not the first time you called women hags. Seems you have female issues and this whole thread struck a nerve with you. You could be a lonely 46 year old, fat, sloven, bald, loser who never married and had been rejected so often your only comfort is that after your next retort to me, you can resume your Barely Legal porn collection. Don’t know. Don’t care.
Older men also by definition have lower quality sperm and are more apt to have genetic mutant offspring the older they have children. They can’t get or sustain erections, needing viagra or cialis to have sex. So another reason they shouldn’t be procreating at an older age, especially with younger women who could passing their genes on with someone who has better quality sperm and also matching libido.
When else did I call woman hags? I used the term one time on this board, which you then referenced out of context. Would you prefer I used Trump's preferred insult and call older ugly women pigs? Only "nerve" this thread struck is my lack of patience and toleration for low-intelligence, irrational people who are incapable of fairly simple concepts and refuse to admit when they've been duped by clickbait. If you're going to argue, then argue like a reasonable human being, not like some gender fluid crayon eating 3rd grader. If these are the kind of nothingburgers that are getting sticky'd on these boards, then what's the point? We can't stoop to using the same tactics they do. We have to be better. Vet better. Research better. Report better. Argue better.
Your perception of my life couldn't be further from the truth. But deep down you probably know that. Who knows, it might even be a projection of your own life struggles. Your problem is that you've slowly accepted that you lost this argument, and resorting to ad hominem is the only card left you can play. You say you don't care, but boy do you really seem to care. This of course all assumes that you're actually a person and not an ad...
Indeed, there are also potential pregnancy risks with men as they age, as you pointed out, lower sperm count, blood flow issues etc. And yet, the man in question ended up having 4 children with this woman, all seemingly in perfect health. So much for that arbitrary generalization's relevance to this case. Might explain why we don't have arbitrary age based laws making it a crime for a 60 year old to have sex with a 20 year old. If some 19 year old woman wants to bang loose skin old balls Sid, who the hell cares? It's not up to you to keep them from acting according to their own liberty, regardless of how icky or gross you and I might think it is.
The only thing that actually matters is the law and God's Law. From the facts of the case, it doesn't appear that this man violated either. Thus, calling him a "pedophile" is bearing false witness and sin. For somebody who goes around on these boards demanding that people repent, you should really consider your own advice fren.
It's actually a scientific fact that women over the age of 30 face higher risk of pregnancy complications. That was the point made, unlike your attempt to remove statements from context. After age 30, it's also true that many women do become haggy. That's just reality. You seem to be the one taking personal offense. Is that perhaps because you think of yourself as a hag? It'd seem that I unintentionally struck a nerve. I don't know you. You could be a dude. Could be an AI bot. Don't know. Don't really care. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Thank you. Glad you finally have come around to accepting reality. That was the entire point of this logical exercise. So if by definition, this case didn't definitively prove the man in question to be a pedophile, then why are allowing clickbait articles alleging as such to be prominently promoted on these boards without having been properly researched and vetted? That's no better than the left and the MSM propaganda machine.
It’s not the first time you called women hags. Seems you have female issues and this whole thread struck a nerve with you. You could be a lonely 46 year old, fat, sloven, bald, loser who never married and had been rejected so often your only comfort is that after your next retort to me, you can resume your Barely Legal porn collection. Don’t know. Don’t care.
Older men also by definition have lower quality sperm and are more apt to have genetic mutant offspring the older they have children. They can’t get or sustain erections, needing viagra or cialis to have sex. So another reason they shouldn’t be procreating at an older age, especially with younger women who could passing their genes on with someone who has better quality sperm and also matching libido.
When else did I call woman hags? I used the term one time on this board, which you then referenced out of context. Would you prefer I used Trump's preferred insult and call older ugly women pigs? Only "nerve" this thread struck is my lack of patience and toleration for low-intelligence, irrational people who are incapable of fairly simple concepts and refuse to admit when they've been duped by clickbait. If you're going to argue, then argue like a reasonable human being, not like some gender fluid crayon eating 3rd grader. If these are the kind of nothingburgers that are getting sticky'd on these boards, then what's the point? We can't stoop to using the same tactics they do. We have to be better. Vet better. Research better. Report better. Argue better.
Your perception of my life couldn't be further from the truth. But deep down you probably know that. Who knows, it might even be a projection of your own life struggles. Your problem is that you've slowly accepted that you lost this argument, and resorting to ad hominem is the only card left you can play. You say you don't care, but boy do you really seem to care. This of course all assumes that you're actually a person and not an ad...
Indeed, there are also potential pregnancy risks with men as they age, as you pointed out, lower sperm count, blood flow issues etc. And yet, the man in question ended up having 4 children with this woman, all seemingly in perfect health. So much for that arbitrary generalization's relevance to this case. Might explain why we don't have arbitrary age based laws making it a crime for a 60 year old to have sex with a 20 year old. If some 19 year old woman wants to bang loose skin old balls Sid, who the hell cares? It's not up to you to keep them from acting according to their own liberty, regardless of how icky or gross you and I might think it is.
The only thing that actually matters is the law and God's Law. From the facts of the case, it doesn't appear that this man violated either. Thus, calling him a "pedophile" is bearing false witness and sin. For somebody who goes around on these boards demanding that people repent, you should really consider your own advice fren.