|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 1, 2018 2:09:44 GMT
That's very hurtful my friend. Especially after I gave your youtube video of you trying to 'shred' a thumbs up. I'm sorry I find pedophiles deplorable but if you like them then I guess that's your business. So hows your summer been? Mine has been awesome even tho it's rained a lot and my gf has been riding me hard. I totally value your opinion, guy who doesn’t know anything about guitar playing and wouldn’t even be able to play a Blink-182 song on guitar after hours of practice. But what makes me value your opinion even more is the fact that you’re the kind of person who would imply an entire fanbase are pedophiles (“I told y'all there was something creepy about the way mcu fans like to hang out in theaters with kids all the time didn't I?”) just because they don’t like the movies that fanbase like. That’s definitely the kind of person whose opinion matters. I like several mcu movies and I'm quite the accomplished musician and I never said the ENTIRE mcu fanbase are pedophiles. Those misconceptions aside I accept your apology and I'm glad you are smart enough to value my opinion. Your comment about Blink 182 reminds me of this other metal head kid I knew that could imitate all those crappy hair metal bands but sneered at me when I told him I was a big Ramones fan. Not that Blink 182 is comparable to The Ramones but you're not as good at imitating actual metal guitarists as Jimmy was either. As I said previously though, props to you for putting those videos on youtube. You're a solid guitarist. |
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Aug 1, 2018 2:34:32 GMT
I totally value your opinion, guy who doesn’t know anything about guitar playing and wouldn’t even be able to play a Blink-182 song on guitar after hours of practice. But what makes me value your opinion even more is the fact that you’re the kind of person who would imply an entire fanbase are pedophiles (“I told y'all there was something creepy about the way mcu fans like to hang out in theaters with kids all the time didn't I?”) just because they don’t like the movies that fanbase like. That’s definitely the kind of person whose opinion matters. I like several mcu movies and I'm quite the accomplished musician and I never said the ENTIRE mcu fanbase are pedophiles. Those misconceptions aside I accept your apology and I'm glad you are smart enough to value my opinion. Your comment about Blink 182 reminds me of this other metal head kid I knew that could imitate all those crappy hair metal bands but sneered at me when I told him I was a big Ramones fan. Not that Blink 182 is comparable to The Ramones but you're not as good at imitating actual metal guitarists as Jimmy was either. As I said previously though, props to you for putting those videos on youtube. You're a solid guitarist. That’s cool and all except I’m not a metalhead. Metalheads only like metal, I like most music genres. Punk rock like Ramones is not one of my favorite genres, but post-punk is. Pretty stupid to act like you know everything about a guitarist’s playing based on one video... One decade old video. So you don’t hate several MCU movies, ok... Then why imply the MCU is full of pedophiles (“the countless mcu pedos”) and the majority of the fanbase are attracted to children (not the first time either)? What is it then? Surely there must be something about the MCU and/or its fanbase you’re not pleased about... |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 1, 2018 12:43:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 1, 2018 14:05:27 GMT
Imagine defending someone with those comments. Sick! The only thing Disney could do in the situation was to fire Gunn for his comments. It should've been done. To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist, so with this precedent there should be more firing. Everyone that came out in support of an actual proved, plead guilty, child drugging rapist, Roman Polanski, should be fired from their current work. Disney should scrap the new Mary Poppins movie because of Meryl Streep. WB should stop negotiation with Martin Scorsese for Joker Movie Universal should fire John Landis as Exec. Producer from remake of American Werewolf in London Gravier Productions should fire Woody Allen and scrap A Rainy Day in New York Magic Factory Productions should fire Whoopi Goldberg from Naya Legend of the Golden Dolphin Amazon should shelf The Man Who Killed Don Quixote because of Terry Gilliam Necropia Entertainment should fire Guillermo del Toro from Pinocchio Guerilla Films should scrap the release of Nekromancer because of Monica Bellucci FX should fire Michael Mann from Hue 1968 tv mini series Lionsgate should fire Darren Aronofsky as a producer of XOXO Showtime should stop negotiations for a Season 2 of Twin Peaks because of David Lynch FilmNation Entertainment should fire Tilda Swinton from The Personal History of David Copperfield Metalwork Pictures should fire Asia Argento from Regular Boy Corsan should fire Adrien Brody from Emperor Although Natalie Portman has since said she regrets signing the petition and has apologized for it Fox Searchlight should fire her from Pale Blue Dot. dude, you are good, I give you that.
I have a friend whose wife divorces him because he behaved a little bit badly. You know nothing too serious, he told her that she's worthless, and he has a bit of a poop & nipples fetish, and talks a lot about child rape and is supporting pedos (I am positive he's no pedo though because he is A-ok).
Believe it or not, the bitch still divorces him! Says she loves children. The fucking nerve.
My friend now wants to demonstrate in court how many of their friend's marriages are doing badly too, and the good wifes STILL do NOT (!!!) divorce their husbands. Considering this, it CANNOT reasonably be legal for the bitch to divorce him, right? Either all wifes divorce their abusive husbands or none does.
Your elegant combination of slippery slope, straw man and tu quoque above gives me hope that you can help him win this case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2018 17:28:47 GMT
Imagine defending someone with those comments. Sick! The only thing Disney could do in the situation was to fire Gunn for his comments. It should've been done. To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist, so with this precedent there should be more firing. Everyone that came out in support of an actual proved, plead guilty, child drugging rapist, Roman Polanski, should be fired from their current work. Disney should scrap the new Mary Poppins movie because of Meryl Streep. WB should stop negotiation with Martin Scorsese for Joker Movie Universal should fire John Landis as Exec. Producer from remake of American Werewolf in London Gravier Productions should fire Woody Allen and scrap A Rainy Day in New York Magic Factory Productions should fire Whoopi Goldberg from Naya Legend of the Golden Dolphin Amazon should shelf The Man Who Killed Don Quixote because of Terry Gilliam Necropia Entertainment should fire Guillermo del Toro from Pinocchio Guerilla Films should scrap the release of Nekromancer because of Monica Bellucci FX should fire Michael Mann from Hue 1968 tv mini series Lionsgate should fire Darren Aronofsky as a producer of XOXO Showtime should stop negotiations for a Season 2 of Twin Peaks because of David Lynch FilmNation Entertainment should fire Tilda Swinton from The Personal History of David Copperfield Metalwork Pictures should fire Asia Argento from Regular Boy Corsan should fire Adrien Brody from Emperor Although Natalie Portman has since said she regrets signing the petition and has apologized for it Fox Searchlight should fire her from Pale Blue Dot. dude, you are good, I give you that.
I have a friend whose wife divorces him because he behaved a little bit badly. You know nothing too serious, he told her that she's worthless, and he has a bit of a poop & nipples fetish, and talks a lot about child rape and is supporting pedos (I am positive he's no pedo though because he is A-ok).
Believe it or not, the bitch still divorces him! Says she loves children. The fucking nerve.
My friend now wants to demonstrate in court how many of their friend's marriages are doing badly too, and the good wifes STILL do NOT (!!!) divorce their husbands. Considering this, it CANNOT reasonably be legal for the bitch to divorce him, right? Either all wifes divorce their abusive husbands or none does.
Your elegant combination of slippery slope, straw man and tu quoque above gives me hope that you can help him win this case?
Lets take them one at a time shall we. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. What did I misrepresent? James Gunn made horrible jokes and should've been fired for them. I believe that. If you real argument is that his jokes are representation that he is an actual pedophile and should've been fired for that then ok. I wasn't supporting Gunn's suspected pedophilia. I was denouncing Roman Polanski's actual pedophilia. And contrasting Hollywood's reaction of the two and the non-reaction of the public to Hollywood's support of a convicted pedophile. Slippery Slope: an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous. I'll admit I started to list those off being semi sarcastic. Thinking support for suspected vs actual pedophilia was hypocritical (more on this below). The more I thought about it. The more I agreed with my list being fired. I agree that Gunn should be fired for what he said. It was despicable. And shows a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and something on a basic level is wrong with him. His comments were vile and makes me question his basic set of morals, so much so, that yes he could be an actual pedophile. As for slippery slope? I don't think the precedent of firing a person for questionable morals or suspicion of pedophilia leading to the firing of people who support an convicted pedophile something wrong or disastrous. If you support the freedom of a convicted pedophile publicly you should be fired. (I honestly believe that those who supported Roman Polanski should be fired and blackballed) And as for the fallacy of hypocrisy (tu quoque). You got me on this one to a degree. The main fault I have with it is a basic one. I am not arguing against the treatment of Gunn. What happened to him is fair and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that his comments were public and there for Disney should've taken those things into consideration when hiring him. That's beside the point once made aware (if they weren't before) they did the right thing. Back to the fallacy. I do find it hypocritical when comparing the two. Maybe the people, who like me, support Gunn's firing, don't know about the Polanski situation. Maybe Gunn's firing will bring up publicity to the other situation and we can get the others fired too. In the end, I think you mistook my point here. It was easy to do. Considering I started the post, like you pointed out, to show hypocrisy. During making it though, the point changed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 1, 2018 19:21:47 GMT
dude, you are good, I give you that.
I have a friend whose wife divorces him because he behaved a little bit badly. You know nothing too serious, he told her that she's worthless, and he has a bit of a poop & nipples fetish, and talks a lot about child rape and is supporting pedos (I am positive he's no pedo though because he is A-ok).
Believe it or not, the bitch still divorces him! Says she loves children. The fucking nerve.
My friend now wants to demonstrate in court how many of their friend's marriages are doing badly too, and the good wifes STILL do NOT (!!!) divorce their husbands. Considering this, it CANNOT reasonably be legal for the bitch to divorce him, right? Either all wifes divorce their abusive husbands or none does.
Your elegant combination of slippery slope, straw man and tu quoque above gives me hope that you can help him win this case?
Lets take them one at a time shall we. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. What did I misrepresent? James Gunn made horrible jokes and should've been fired for them. I believe that. If you real argument is that his jokes are representation that he is an actual pedophile and should've been fired for that then ok. I wasn't supporting Gunn's suspected pedophilia. I was denouncing Roman Polanski's actual pedophilia. And contrasting Hollywood's reaction of the two and the non-reaction of the public to Hollywood's support of a convicted pedophile. Slippery Slope: an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous. I'll admit I started to list those off being semi sarcastic. Thinking support for suspected vs actual pedophilia was hypocritical (more on this below). The more I thought about it. The more I agreed with my list being fired. I agree that Gunn should be fired for what he said. It was despicable. And shows a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and something on a basic level is wrong with him. His comments were vile and makes me question his basic set of morals, so much so, that yes he could be an actual pedophile. As for slippery slope? I don't think the precedent of firing a person for questionable morals or suspicion of pedophilia leading to the firing of people who support an convicted pedophile something wrong or disastrous. If you support the freedom of a convicted pedophile publicly you should be fired. (I honestly believe that those who supported Roman Polanski should be fired and blackballed) And as for the fallacy of hypocrisy (tu quoque). You got me on this one to a degree. The main fault I have with it is a basic one. I am not arguing against the treatment of Gunn. What happened to him is fair and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that his comments were public and there for Disney should've taken those things into consideration when hiring him. That's beside the point once made aware (if they weren't before) they did the right thing. Back to the fallacy. I do find it hypocritical when comparing the two. Maybe the people, who like me, support Gunn's firing, don't know about the Polanski situation. Maybe Gunn's firing will bring up publicity to the other situation and we can get the others fired too. In the end, I think you mistook my point here. It was easy to do. Considering I started the post, like you pointed out, to show hypocrisy. During making it though, the point changed. a jeez, I had so much fun with my silly divorce analogy and all you do is analyzing the dry fallacy stuff, for what it's worth: the straw man: Yeah that's the weakest one. " To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist". When reading I thought you misrepresented the facts by leaving out that Gunn made not only jokes but also supporting comments regarding Nambla and some known pedophiles who provided material. Also, I think that the jokes defense makes it actually worse, as jokes regarding the rape of children show a severe lack of character and moral compassion ("Kid get snatched by eagle is what I call it when I get lucky", "traumatized kid sexually assaulted by monkey with cum made me extremely happy" etc) - most pedos (Im not saying Gunn is one) actually fight against that harmful disposition and take it seriously. But in the end the point stands in the context you provide, a convicted child rapist should be fired all the more (like Gunn) - and must be put in prison and therapy (unlike Gunn, though it would not harm him). Polansky is a good filmmaker, still I do not watch his movies because of his depravity. Slippery road & Tu Quoque: not much to add to what you say. fair enough, I read your post as sarcastic playing down Gunns statements and cynically playing up other people's misdeeds (like Goldberg, Streep, Scorsese etc) to create a false equivalent and to vindicate Gunn. My bad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2018 19:26:06 GMT
Lets take them one at a time shall we. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. What did I misrepresent? James Gunn made horrible jokes and should've been fired for them. I believe that. If you real argument is that his jokes are representation that he is an actual pedophile and should've been fired for that then ok. I wasn't supporting Gunn's suspected pedophilia. I was denouncing Roman Polanski's actual pedophilia. And contrasting Hollywood's reaction of the two and the non-reaction of the public to Hollywood's support of a convicted pedophile. Slippery Slope: an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous. I'll admit I started to list those off being semi sarcastic. Thinking support for suspected vs actual pedophilia was hypocritical (more on this below). The more I thought about it. The more I agreed with my list being fired. I agree that Gunn should be fired for what he said. It was despicable. And shows a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and something on a basic level is wrong with him. His comments were vile and makes me question his basic set of morals, so much so, that yes he could be an actual pedophile. As for slippery slope? I don't think the precedent of firing a person for questionable morals or suspicion of pedophilia leading to the firing of people who support an convicted pedophile something wrong or disastrous. If you support the freedom of a convicted pedophile publicly you should be fired. (I honestly believe that those who supported Roman Polanski should be fired and blackballed) And as for the fallacy of hypocrisy (tu quoque). You got me on this one to a degree. The main fault I have with it is a basic one. I am not arguing against the treatment of Gunn. What happened to him is fair and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that his comments were public and there for Disney should've taken those things into consideration when hiring him. That's beside the point once made aware (if they weren't before) they did the right thing. Back to the fallacy. I do find it hypocritical when comparing the two. Maybe the people, who like me, support Gunn's firing, don't know about the Polanski situation. Maybe Gunn's firing will bring up publicity to the other situation and we can get the others fired too. In the end, I think you mistook my point here. It was easy to do. Considering I started the post, like you pointed out, to show hypocrisy. During making it though, the point changed. a jeez, I had so much fun with my silly divorce analogy and all you do is analyzing the dry fallacy stuff, for what it's worth: the straw man: Yeah that's the weakest one. " To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist". When reading I thought you misrepresented the facts by leaving out that Gunn made not only jokes but also supporting comments regarding Nambla and some known pedophiles who provided material. Also, I think that the jokes defense makes it actually worse, as jokes regarding the rape of children show a severe lack of character and moral compassion ("Kid get snatched by eagle is what I call it when I get lucky", "traumatized kid sexually assaulted by monkey with cum made me extremely happy" etc) - most pedos (Im not saying Gunn is one) actually fight against that harmful disposition and take it seriously. But in the end the point stands in the context you provide, a convicted child rapist should be fired all the more (like Gunn) - and must be put in prison and therapy (unlike Gunn, though it would not harm him). Polansky is a good filmmaker, still I do not watch his movies because of his depravity. Slippery road & Tu Quoque: not much to add to what you say. fair enough, I read your post as sarcastic playing down Gunns statements and cynically playing up other people's misdeeds (like Goldberg, Streep, Scorsese etc) to create a false equivalent and to vindicate Gunn. My bad. I did grin at the divorce analogy for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2018 19:40:12 GMT
Lets take them one at a time shall we. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. What did I misrepresent? James Gunn made horrible jokes and should've been fired for them. I believe that. If you real argument is that his jokes are representation that he is an actual pedophile and should've been fired for that then ok. I wasn't supporting Gunn's suspected pedophilia. I was denouncing Roman Polanski's actual pedophilia. And contrasting Hollywood's reaction of the two and the non-reaction of the public to Hollywood's support of a convicted pedophile. Slippery Slope: an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous. I'll admit I started to list those off being semi sarcastic. Thinking support for suspected vs actual pedophilia was hypocritical (more on this below). The more I thought about it. The more I agreed with my list being fired. I agree that Gunn should be fired for what he said. It was despicable. And shows a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and something on a basic level is wrong with him. His comments were vile and makes me question his basic set of morals, so much so, that yes he could be an actual pedophile. As for slippery slope? I don't think the precedent of firing a person for questionable morals or suspicion of pedophilia leading to the firing of people who support an convicted pedophile something wrong or disastrous. If you support the freedom of a convicted pedophile publicly you should be fired. (I honestly believe that those who supported Roman Polanski should be fired and blackballed) And as for the fallacy of hypocrisy (tu quoque). You got me on this one to a degree. The main fault I have with it is a basic one. I am not arguing against the treatment of Gunn. What happened to him is fair and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that his comments were public and there for Disney should've taken those things into consideration when hiring him. That's beside the point once made aware (if they weren't before) they did the right thing. Back to the fallacy. I do find it hypocritical when comparing the two. Maybe the people, who like me, support Gunn's firing, don't know about the Polanski situation. Maybe Gunn's firing will bring up publicity to the other situation and we can get the others fired too. In the end, I think you mistook my point here. It was easy to do. Considering I started the post, like you pointed out, to show hypocrisy. During making it though, the point changed. a jeez, I had so much fun with my silly divorce analogy and all you do is analyzing the dry fallacy stuff, for what it's worth: the straw man: Yeah that's the weakest one. " To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist". When reading I thought you misrepresented the facts by leaving out that Gunn made not only jokes but also supporting comments regarding Nambla and some known pedophiles who provided material. Also, I think that the jokes defense makes it actually worse, as jokes regarding the rape of children show a severe lack of character and moral compassion ("Kid get snatched by eagle is what I call it when I get lucky", "traumatized kid sexually assaulted by monkey with cum made me extremely happy" etc) - most pedos (Im not saying Gunn is one) actually fight against that harmful disposition and take it seriously. But in the end the point stands in the context you provide, a convicted child rapist should be fired all the more (like Gunn) - and must be put in prison and therapy (unlike Gunn, though it would not harm him). Polansky is a good filmmaker, still I do not watch his movies because of his depravity. Slippery road & Tu Quoque: not much to add to what you say. fair enough, I read your post as sarcastic playing down Gunns statements and cynically playing up other people's misdeeds (like Goldberg, Streep, Scorsese etc) to create a false equivalent and to vindicate Gunn. My bad. Also seeing the notification that you had quoted me, I was betting on False Equivalence Fallacy as the main point of your comment. I was a little disappointed you didn't come right out and say it, but only implied. Good to see that I actually got it in a following reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2018 19:45:47 GMT
Not to down play the seriousness of the subject, just guessing others reaction to comments. And don't worry about mistaking the tone of the comment. Hauntedknight87 didn't know if I was being sarcastic about it either. The ambiguity of the comment is obvious once I reread it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 1, 2018 19:50:03 GMT
Not to down play the seriousness of the subject, just guessing others reaction to comments. And don't worry about mistaking the tone of the comment. Hauntedknight87 didn't know if I was being sarcastic about it either. The ambiguity of the comment is obvious once I reread it. It's cool. I do believe Hollywood needs a purge. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 1, 2018 20:11:39 GMT
a jeez, I had so much fun with my silly divorce analogy and all you do is analyzing the dry fallacy stuff, for what it's worth: the straw man: Yeah that's the weakest one. " To me making pro child rape jokes is less despicable then showing support for an actual Child Rapist". When reading I thought you misrepresented the facts by leaving out that Gunn made not only jokes but also supporting comments regarding Nambla and some known pedophiles who provided material. Also, I think that the jokes defense makes it actually worse, as jokes regarding the rape of children show a severe lack of character and moral compassion ("Kid get snatched by eagle is what I call it when I get lucky", "traumatized kid sexually assaulted by monkey with cum made me extremely happy" etc) - most pedos (Im not saying Gunn is one) actually fight against that harmful disposition and take it seriously. But in the end the point stands in the context you provide, a convicted child rapist should be fired all the more (like Gunn) - and must be put in prison and therapy (unlike Gunn, though it would not harm him). Polansky is a good filmmaker, still I do not watch his movies because of his depravity. Slippery road & Tu Quoque: not much to add to what you say. fair enough, I read your post as sarcastic playing down Gunns statements and cynically playing up other people's misdeeds (like Goldberg, Streep, Scorsese etc) to create a false equivalent and to vindicate Gunn. My bad. Also seeing the notification that you had quoted me, I was betting on False Equivalence Fallacy as the main point of your comment. I was a little disappointed you didn't come right out and say it, but only implied. Good to see that I actually got it in a following reply. only fair, my fallacy gun is getting rusty. I was too concerned with thinking up my follow-up analogy if had you protested too much. The follow up would even have been less subtle and tasteful than the first one. Spoiler: I would have been about you hiring a new babysitter called "Uncle Raptor" for the kids in the orphanage you run. Raptor's a weird little man writing his big masterwork featuring a stuttering Gun-Beaver obsessed with little ponies and rodent poo. Later, you get sent questionable tweets by Raptor with shocking content a la Gunn.  There would be a multiple choice test like: What do you do: (a) fire the creep immediately (b) terminate by adhering to a grace period and let him work (c) the tweets were a few years old, sure he has changed (d) meh, there are worse raptors around (e) his tweets were sent by some right wing omegas and you do not follow these lowlifes etc. Eh, some jokes better remain unwritten. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 2, 2018 1:23:51 GMT
wow I am So surprised more people voted "yes" in the poll, than "no". I thought this one was going to be a clear prevalent "No".
Well life is full of surprises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 2, 2018 2:49:41 GMT
wow I am So surprised more people voted "yes" in the poll, than "no". I thought this one was going to be a clear prevalent "No". Well life is full of surprises. Witch hunt mentality. When a person is accused of being a witch, very few people want to defend said person for fear of also being accused of witchcraft. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 2, 2018 8:14:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 7, 2018 17:25:38 GMT
and how exactly do you know he’s a pedophile? He said he went to a NAMBLA meeting. What is NAMBLA? Is that basically Pedophiles Anonymous? |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 7, 2018 17:38:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Aug 7, 2018 18:21:52 GMT
and how exactly do you know he’s a pedophile? He said he went to a NAMBLA meeting. We don't know if that was a joke or not. Of course you know it was a joke, just like all the jokes Jon Stewart used to make about them. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 7, 2018 18:41:38 GMT
He said he went to a NAMBLA meeting. We don't know if that was a joke or not. Of course you know it was a joke, just like all the jokes Jon Stewart used to make about them. The truth is, I don't know anything of the sort, and neither do you. And I've never seen Jon Stewart. |
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Aug 7, 2018 18:56:00 GMT
Of course you know it was a joke, just like all the jokes Jon Stewart used to make about them. The truth is, I don't know anything of the sort, and neither do you. And I've never seen Jon Stewart. But since he's never been under suspicion of anything of the sort and still isn't you can tell it's a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 7, 2018 18:58:43 GMT
The truth is, I don't know anything of the sort, and neither do you. And I've never seen Jon Stewart. But since he's never been under suspicion of anything of the sort and still isn't you can tell it's a joke. Listen, I am not going to talk about this subject, it gets people too riled up, and it disgusts me. Thank you for understanding. |
|
