https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Goldstein#Views_on_religion
The only claim I'm making in this post is that this wikipedia article exists and that it contains text, Dom.
In his 2004 book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, Luke Ford wrote about a conversation with Goldstein, in which Ford asked Goldstein why Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the porn industry. He answered, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged." Ford then asked, "What does it mean to you to be a Jew?" To which Goldstein responded, "It doesn't mean anything. It means that I'm called a kike."
I'm not asking about that. I'm asking why you decided to cite Wikipedia as though it is in any way a reliable source. And why are you defending it?
I'll admit that I have done so as well, but it has always been paired with an expression of shame for my despicable behavior. I'd never dream of doing it and then doubling down.
What is that motive exactly?
Hey didn't we already skip these middle-posts at the beginning of my last post? That was supposed to save us both time, cat.
Tough titty, cat. It's a list of claims and sources. If you're not questioning the claim or source itself you might as well not wax No True Scott about a website they appeared in.
I think your non-reply on whether the PDF would be significant to you answers both of our questions about natural motive, if you think about it. I lack the motive to talk about it much more than I already have.
Lmaoooo and Antonio shut the fuck up because he knew he couldn't do shit.
Fuck I hate that guy. Such a disingenuous shitbag
I understand that you really, really don't want to talk about why you use Wikipedia and present is as a reliable source, but no deal. You must think everyone else is stupid.
So just to be clear, you copy-pasted what you say is a 'claim', that you in no way verified? That is your defense?
Are you alright? This sounds like you just overdosed on weed.
Did you just heckin neglect to include a heckin argument?
Not on trial.
Waste some other goy's time.
My hecking argument was that you're a total joke for shamelessly using Wikipedia as a source. Which is why you want to talk about literally anything except talk about what you have done, which is take seriously Wikipedia.
Nor able to make a persuasive argument, seems.
I mean, all you had to do was say: "yeah, you're right, Wikipedia is a terrible source." Instead, you wasted your own time in an attempt to evade this fact.