Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Choronzon]

And The Real Killer is still out there somewhere.

No, no. OJ killed her, it just wasn't murder because she didn't explicitly not consent to being killed.

It was some other, lesser crime that is just like murder but somehow completely different, and its wrong to call him a murderer for committing totally not murder but was kinda murder.

[St James]

We wouldn't have had a trial as she would have shot back.

Everyone knows that guns offer an invisible shield of protection from bullets!

That is why everyone needs a gun, to protect us from those mean people with . . . wait . . . guns!

To keep on topic, the only thing I have to say: No.

[Neo Art]

No, no. OJ killed her, it just wasn't murder because she didn't explicitly not consent to being killed.

It was some other, lesser crime that is just like murder but somehow completely different, and its wrong to call him a murderer for committing totally not murder but was kinda murder.

Now you got it! It's totally like murder but not, so you can't call him a murderer! SO THERE!

[Ifreann]

Only by reasonable people.

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

[Gauthier]

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

He shouldn't have taken your woman's carpet lint you mean.

[Des-Bal]

If at any point the gang feels like ending the threadjack and starting a rape thread I'd be happy to engage in a discussion about consent there.

[Neo Art]

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

i'm sure some of those slaves escaping the plantation in the middle of the night picked up some dirt on their feet from master's farm on their way across the mississippi.

[Choronzon]

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

He shouldn't have taken your woman's carpet lint you mean.

Are you implying women can own property?

Get out.

[Neo Art]

He shouldn't have taken your woman's carpet lint you mean.

Are you implying women can own property?

Get out.

No, they can have the absence of an affirmative non ownership of it however.

[Gauthier]

He shouldn't have taken your woman's carpet lint you mean.

Are you implying women can own property?

Get out.

Your woman, your carpet lint.

[Ifreann]

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

He shouldn't have taken your woman's carpet lint you mean.

Same thing.

---

Nigger shouldn't have taken my carpet lint.

i'm sure some of those slaves escaping the plantation in the middle of the night picked up some dirt on their feet from master's farm on their way across the mississippi.

If not bits of cotton stuck to their clothes.

[Choronzon]

Are you implying women can own property?

Get out.

No, they can have the absence of an affirmative non ownership of it however.

That hurt my brain a little.

[Pillea]

No, they can have the absence of an affirmative non ownership of it however.

That hurt my brain a little.

Makes ya wonder how people live on that logic eh? Do they just walk around with perpetual migraines?

[Neo Art]

No, they can have the absence of an affirmative non ownership of it however.

That hurt my brain a little.

How do you think it felt writing it?

[Choronzon]

That hurt my brain a little.

How do you think it felt writing it?

A bit like passing a kidney stone, I'd imagine.

A really, really stupid kidney stone.

[Starkiller101]

thats fucked up

[Des-Bal]

So no? We're just going to keep doing the derailey circle-jerky thing? That's unfortunate, the thread was interesting.

[Mavorpen]

So no? We're just going to keep doing the derailey circle-jerky thing? That's unfortunate, the thread was interesting.

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

[Choronzon]

So no? We're just going to keep doing the derailey circle-jerky thing? That's unfortunate, the thread was interesting.

I mean, we've sort of reached a point where on one side people are saying, "Holy shit, this guy killed a woman over $150 because she didn't bang him."

And on the other side you have people saying, "Fuck that whore, he was just recovering his property. She owed him sex, because she was a woman and he gave her money. Bitches don't know 'bout my Glock."

So no, we don't really feel the need to continue the conversation with you.

So no? We're just going to keep doing the derailey circle-jerky thing? That's unfortunate, the thread was interesting.

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

You mean talking to walls isn't fun for you?

[Des-Bal]

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

How dare I expect you to have evidence to back up the wild assed assertion the funds offered in an illegal transaction legally belong to the party they were offered to.

This is not a misunderstanding, I am asking for evidence which you refuse to admit you don't have.

[Ifreann]

So no? We're just going to keep doing the derailey circle-jerky thing? That's unfortunate, the thread was interesting.

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

In fairness, is it really a circlejerk with just one person?

[Choronzon]

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

How dare I expect you to have evidence to back up the wild assed assertion the funds offered in an illegal transaction legally belong to the party they were offered to.

This is not a misunderstanding, I am asking for evidence which you refuse to admit you don't have.

You know, its ok to just not understand somthing sometimes and admit that. Its how you learn.

[Choronzon]

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

In fairness, is it really a circlejerk with just one person?

One person can move in a circle.

One person jacking off while frantically dancing in a circle is actually a really good analogy for Des-bal's stance.

[Mavorpen]

No it wasn't. It stopped being interesting when you shut down your brain and screamed "SOURC3!?! WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE!?!?!" while ignoring every single attempt to explain jurisprudence to you. YOU created the circle jerk the moment you posted.

How dare I expect you to have evidence to back up the wild assed assertion the funds offered in an illegal transaction legally belong to the party they were offered to.

This is not a misunderstanding, I am asking for evidence which you refuse to admit you don't have.

That is certainly a misunderstanding, because it assumes that the law works in a way it doesn't. If you were in a courtroom and said, "LUL SOURCE!?!" in the form of EXPLICITLY SPECIFIC laws made by your opponent every time they make a claim, you wouldn't be taken seriously. There's something called inductive reasoning. You, for whatever reason, refuse to use it to mask your ignorance of the subject at hand.

[Des-Bal]

That is certainly a misunderstanding, because it assumes that the law works in a way it doesn't. If you were in a courtroom and said, "LUL SOURCE!?!" in the form of EXPLICITLY SPECIFIC laws made by your opponent every time they make a claim, you wouldn't be taken seriously. There's something called inductive reasoning. You, for whatever reason, refuse to use it to mask your ignorance of the subject at hand.

You are LITERALLY asking me to take your word as law. There are probably ways to be less reasonable but off the top of my head I can't think of any.