Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
No one with an ounce of sense believed the woman after the Dna results were published. At the time that the 88 were taking out ads, making inflammatory statements, etc., they were believers.

Then they had a duty to retract the malicious and inflammatory statements in the ad. Only one did so.

The difference between her act and that of the Duke students stripper/ho party is that the ignorant, bejeweled woman was not engaged in actively misusing another human being. So, while her act is ignorant, it is not also manipulative.

She is an adult who chose her line of work. She was hired to strip. She wanted the gig. BS to your misusing charge.

Maybe I was onto something after all in #255:

YOU: (Notice I did not say "IMMORAL thing to do.")

ME: Yes, I know what you didn't say, I just don't buy your explanation that risky behavior is your main concern. Your real issue in the lawsuit discussion is immorality, IMO.

348 posted on 12/26/2007 9:37:01 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]


To: Ken H

If they didn’t retract their comments, then that’s an indicator that they believed them, isn’t it?

You don’t think that hiring a whore is misusing a human being?

Can I assume you think whoring is good for a person?


349 posted on 12/26/2007 9:40:53 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson