Your only remaining reason to pointlessly criticise the headline is that you missed the distinction between the role of subject and object in a sentence? What a hill to die on!
Devastating Report Details How Underage Homeless Girl Allegedly Had Sex With Matt Gaetz For Money to Buy Braces
Sounds like you still don’t understand and it’s making you cross. I’ll explain.
Devastating Report Details How Underage Homeless Girl…
The girl is the subject in the sentence. The sentence is about what she did.
Allegedly Had Sex With Matt Gaetz
Matt Gaetz is the object of the sentence. He is who she did it with.
For Money to Buy Braces
And this says why she did it. NOT why he did it.
So the headline was accurate because that’s exactly what she alleges. Getting all hissy about how he might have had no idea she needed braces is silly because no claim about that was made.
Spending all day objecting to the wording of the headline, in particular objecting that Matt Gaetz might not have known she was underage made you come across as defending a rich and powerful pedo offender, which, as I said, is not a good look for you.
A middle aged man having sex with a teenager for money and buying her drugs is starkly immoral even if he claims he didn’t know she was underaged.
Calling her “barely legal” as you did, when she was not “legal” suggests you’re watching the wrong kind of porn and you think that stuff is fine and take the porn site’s word that it’s legal despite them warning you that it’s on the fringe.
Maybe you has a more intelligent point to make, but “you’re a moron” didn’t communicate it very effectively.
Your only remaining reason to pointlessly criticise the headline is that you missed the distinction between the role of subject and object in a sentence? What a hill to die on!
Reread it.
Removed by mod
Sounds like you still don’t understand and it’s making you cross. I’ll explain.
The girl is the subject in the sentence. The sentence is about what she did.
Matt Gaetz is the object of the sentence. He is who she did it with.
And this says why she did it. NOT why he did it.
So the headline was accurate because that’s exactly what she alleges. Getting all hissy about how he might have had no idea she needed braces is silly because no claim about that was made.
Spending all day objecting to the wording of the headline, in particular objecting that Matt Gaetz might not have known she was underage made you come across as defending a rich and powerful pedo offender, which, as I said, is not a good look for you.
A middle aged man having sex with a teenager for money and buying her drugs is starkly immoral even if he claims he didn’t know she was underaged.
Calling her “barely legal” as you did, when she was not “legal” suggests you’re watching the wrong kind of porn and you think that stuff is fine and take the porn site’s word that it’s legal despite them warning you that it’s on the fringe.
Maybe you has a more intelligent point to make, but “you’re a moron” didn’t communicate it very effectively.