Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-30-2019, 07:06 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
wha wha wha whaaa?

It's difficult to parse that convoluted mess of a sentence, but you seem to be saying those who term others as "racist" or "sexist" aren't doing it right because they can't conceive of objective truth? That would apply to any pejorative term, such as the "dumbfuck" you like to overuse.

Look, observers can only respond to what they observe, and if the observed displays racist or sexist behavior, that's what they'll get called, even if down deep they're nice law-abiding boy scouts. In order not to get a bad label, they have to not engage in bad behavior. While the news coverage may have portrayed Smirky McDouchebag in a negative light, they didn't endeavor to ruin him with false information. That's what Trump Tweets are for.
It's actually quite clear just apparently beyond your ability to grasp. Rather than you continuing to fling verbal feces at what you don't understand I'll try and dumb it down further for you and, I don't know, type slower?

1) Facts are objective truths. This includes things like the boiling point of water, the speed of light and other scientific facts as well as where you were on a particular date at a particular time, whether you punched someone, etc.

2) Opinions are subjective, and to the extent that they are true they are subjective truths. The two categories of objective and subjective truths are mutually exclusive. No matter how many people agree that x is a racist or y is beautiful it will never be a fact akin to the boiling point of water or how many feet are in a mile. Even if those opinions are based on facts they still remain subjective because the significance of those facts remains subjective. Objective facts have no subjective qualities unless you get all philosophical. The temperature of the water and the atmospheric pressure are objective criteria relating to the boiling point of water and in no way subjective.

3) This is relevant here because Lance Turbo was actually correct that truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. Where he is incorrect is that it applies to this case at all. The only claims of defamation that are subject to the truth defense are, unsurprisingly, those based on a falsifiable claim of objective truth - claims of defamation for being called a thief for example are defeated by a relevant criminal conviction for theft.

4) When the claim of defamation is based on a non-falsifiable accusation such as racism then truth is not available as a defense precisely because opinions are non-falsifiable. On the other hand matters of opinion, or at least pure opinion, are protected speech and not normally subject to defamation claims anyways. Which is exactly what happened in the case in question.

Do you get it now?

Last edited by DirkHardly; 07-30-2019 at 07:08 PM.
  #202  
Old 07-30-2019, 07:48 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
What a vile and reprehensible thing to even joke about in the Pit you utter piece of shit.

From a dispassionate logical standpoint you realize those aren't close to being analogus right? Of course you don't, you're a stupid asshole
Oh snowflake.

Weirdly, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," describes both your post and one of many disturbing aspects of the porn you're into. I assume.
  #203  
Old 07-30-2019, 07:54 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I don't know dumb fuck either. Friend of yours?



I'm not the one who is claiming to be the "adult" in the pit. And tantrum? Really? Again, this is the pit. Lighten up Francis.
The claim of being an "adult" was in relation to k9 blathering on about things clearly beyond their comprehension and in no other sense. As in their opinions as to whatever facts were being discussed were irrelevant and lacking in knowledge and logic like those of a petulant child. And maybe it's just me but Pit or not I think going after people should be restricted to those who deserve it or general gonad- busting for amusement and not pathetic efforts to feed one's ego. And sometimes people do indeed need to lighten up and sometimes assholes use it in an effort to rationalize and minimize their asshole behavior
  #204  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
If you watched the video then you know what he did wrong.

Someone convinced you that he didn't do anything wrong, but that is bullshit. You know what he did, and what he did was wrong.

Which is what?

And no one “convinced” me. What are you even talking about? Do you think I listen to Rush Limbaugh or sit around watching FOX News? LOL I came to that conclusion on my own, from watching the video.
  #205  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:06 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Oh snowflake.

Weirdly, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," describes both your post and one of many disturbing aspects of the porn you're into. I assume.
There's really only one kind of "common" porn that's illegal in the US and that ain't it. So while this comment is...whatever, you might understand what I thought you were implying was much more disturbing, although rape-porn or whatever the hell you're getting at is disturbing enough. It wouldn't even occur to me to go there to insult someone but you do you I guess
  #206  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:24 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Which is what?

And no one “convinced” me. What are you even talking about? Do you think I listen to Rush Limbaugh or sit around watching FOX News? LOL I came to that conclusion on my own, from watching the video.
Look you're an unapologetic racist on top of being a notorious contrarian dumbass so it is completely unsurprising that you can't see fault in Smirky McDouchebag with your funhouse mirror view of right and wrong.

Go fuck yourself.
  #207  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
IOW you cannot articulate anything he did wrong. I thought as much.
  #208  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:30 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
There's really only one kind of "common" porn that's illegal in the US and that ain't it.
You seem to know an awful lot about where exactly the line between legal and illegal porn is. Like. A. Lot.

Why is that snowflake? You seem like the type who thinks about that a bunch. I don't know this, but I feel it strongly, and that should count for something.
  #209  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:32 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
IOW you cannot articulate anything he did wrong. I thought as much.
In other really fucking dumb words. Like completely inaccurate and wrong words are technically, "other words." So I guess you're right about this one.

Blind squirrel and all that.
  #210  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:38 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
You could actually state what you think he did wrong. But you don’t. Why not?
  #211  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:16 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Ah Big T, an arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck that stands out even among other arrogant, self-righteous dumb fucks. I've been reading your drivel for years. Can you even begin to grasp the arrogance and faulty logic in terms of Christian theology that would cause to say you believe people would go to hell for voting for Trump? Of course you can't because you're the arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck who said it.

And once again you and k9 blatantly make assumptions about me without any evidence whatsoever all while touting your own logical skills, disparaging mine, and completely missing the obvious irony. You're about as familiar with logic as you are the touch of a woman.

And just like you overestimate your own logical reasoning abilities you overestimate the average person's grasp of logical reasoning as well. The average person is terrible at it, primarily because objectivity is a skill that needs to be learned against our natural inclinations. That's what the LSAT tests for and what law school teaches you - objectivity, logic, and how to debate using those skills.

Like most stupid people when you encounter something you don't understand you assume the fault lies externally and not with you. Stupid people are usually the last ones to admit they're stupid because one of the areas they lack knowledge in is just how much knowledge they lack.

And there remains the incontrovertible fact that every one of your assumptions, the ones you made with non-existent evidence and faulty logic, is wrong. I not only did pretty well on the LSAT (top 2-3%) but my score was enough to gain admission and a scholarship to my alma mater which at the time was ranked in the top 25 and one of the top public law schools in the country. And I graduated 15 years ago. So what would you do if I posted pretty strong evidence of this? Like a picture of my JD for instance? What recourse are you going to have then?

I know it's not me Big T, it's you and others. My ability to argue logically and make legal arguments has been tested repeatedly on an academic and professional level and I know none of you can say the same thing. All of you keep accusing me in vague terms of lacking in reading comprehension, making bad arguments, etc but none of you actually seem to be able to come up with any reasons as to exactly how I'm doing what you accuse me of. The fact that you're oblivious to this omission on your part says a lot about your actual ability to reason logically and debate. There's other lawyers on this board feel free to ask them what they think of my posts. Won't really matter though because I know everything I stated about my education and background is true and every argument I made logically sound. You on the other hand are widely considered to be a stupid douche. Have at it.
Listen, you know if you’ve spent any time at all in the Pit that lack of reading comprehension that BigT and others display over multiple years has to be an act. I don’t see how one could be a functioning adult and read as poorly as they appear to. So chalk it up to dishonesty. You aren’t going to get through to their weasely little brains because they don’t have any intention of honest debate.
  #212  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:25 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You could actually state what you think he did wrong. But you don’t. Why not?
Because I don't like you. I don't feel like it. And it would be a waste of time since explaining right and wrong to you is like trying to teach a dog calculus.

Go fuck yourself.
  #213  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:28 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You aren’t going to get through to their weasely little brains because they don’t have any intention of honest debate.
I certainly didn't have any intention of honest debate when I started this pit thread.

I wanted to celebrate the thwarting of an attack on the first amendment by Smirky McDouchebag and tell anyone who supported him to go fuck themselves.

And... I am fucking nailing it!

Also, go fuck yourself.
  #214  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lance turbo View Post
i don't feel like it.
roflmao
  #215  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:32 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I certainly didn't have any intention of honest debate when I started this pit thread.

I wanted to celebrate the thwarting of an attack on the first amendment by Smirky McDouchebag and tell anyone who supported him to go fuck themselves.

And... I am fucking nailing it!

Also, go fuck yourself.
If it brings you joy, great. At least when you are occupied here you aren’t beating up kids at the park.
  #216  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:48 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
If it brings you joy, great. At least when you are occupied here you aren’t beating up kids at the park.
How the fuck would you know what I do at the park? You're not allowed within 500 feet of places where children congregate.
  #217  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:49 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
roflmao
Look at this giggly fucking racist.
  #218  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:21 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,261
You're still doing exactly what I said, DirkHardly. You prove your logic skills not through claiming you have some sort of rewards, but by actually making rational arguments. Your reply to me, however, was not rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Ah Big T, an arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck that stands out even among other arrogant, self-righteous dumb fucks. I've been reading your drivel for years. Can you even begin to grasp the arrogance and faulty logic in terms of Christian theology that would cause to say you believe people would go to hell for voting for Trump? Of course you can't because you're the arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck who said it.
This paragraph is not logical or rational. Rather than debunk anything I've said, it simply brings up an argument I've made in the past. And then it can't even actually debunk that argument.

This entire paragraph is just a giant ad hominem. Not rational argument.

Quote:
And once again you and k9 blatantly make assumptions about me without any evidence whatsoever all while touting your own logical skills, disparaging mine, and completely missing the obvious irony. You're about as familiar with logic as you are the touch of a woman.
This also is not rational. For one, you misread my post, where I did not actually make assumptions, but merely explained why certain assumptions would be made. But, more importantly you actually do the very thing you claim is wrong.

You assume that I and "k9" have never felt the touch of a woman. You have no evidence of this. But you are willing to make an assumption. Yet you claim making any sorts assumptions is wrong. You ignore your own logic.

Quote:
And just like you overestimate your own logical reasoning abilities you overestimate the average person's grasp of logical reasoning as well. The average person is terrible at it, primarily because objectivity is a skill that needs to be learned against our natural inclinations. That's what the LSAT tests for and what law school teaches you - objectivity, logic, and how to debate using those skills.
This portion of your argument has nothing to do with anything I argued. I never said anything about the general public.

Quote:
Like most stupid people when you encounter something you don't understand you assume the fault lies externally and not with you. Stupid people are usually the last ones to admit they're stupid because one of the areas they lack knowledge in is just how much knowledge they lack.
This is just faulty logic. Placing your statement into conditional form: Stupid people assume the fault lies in everyone but them. BigT assumes that the fault lies is someone else. Therefore BigT is stupid.

It should now be apparent that this paragraph is merely the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

Quote:
And there remains the incontrovertible fact that every one of your assumptions, the ones you made with non-existent evidence and faulty logic, is wrong. I not only did pretty well on the LSAT (top 2-3%) but my score was enough to gain admission and a scholarship to my alma mater which at the time was ranked in the top 25 and one of the top public law schools in the country. And I graduated 15 years ago. So what would you do if I posted pretty strong evidence of this? Like a picture of my JD for instance? What recourse are you going to have then?
Except that isn't incontrovertible fact. It is information that you claim to have, but none of the rest of us know it is actually exists.

It is foolish to try to refer to one's accolades to try and bolster their argument on an anonymous message board.

Quote:
I know it's not me Big T, it's you and others. My ability to argue logically and make legal arguments has been tested repeatedly on an academic and professional level and I know none of you can say the same thing. All of you keep accusing me in vague terms of lacking in reading comprehension, making bad arguments, etc but none of you actually seem to be able to come up with any reasons as to exactly how I'm doing what you accuse me of. The fact that you're oblivious to this omission on your part says a lot about your actual ability to reason logically and debate. There's other lawyers on this board feel free to ask them what they think of my posts. Won't really matter though because I know everything I stated about my education and background is true and every argument I made logically sound. You on the other hand are widely considered to be a stupid douche. Have at it.
And this is the crutch of your bad argument. Rather than bolster your argument through showing evidence that it is correct, you argue that, because you have received some academic credentials related to logical thinking, your subsequent responses must in fact be always logical.

Even if I accept that everything you have said is true, it would have no bearing on whether or not any specific argument you have made is in fact logical. This entire line of reasoning is faulty, which is exactly what I said before.

Your logical reasoning abilities appear to be no better than that of Helmet Doork or anomalous1. Your entire reply to me is full of logical mistakes. It is ultimately nothing but an appeal to emotion.

It is perfectly rational to assume that your logical abilities are not actually all that great, based on the examples you have provided here. If you actually want to try and convince people that your arguments are rational, you need to actually argue in a rational manner.
  #219  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:11 PM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
All of the above blathering is from the (deeply flawed) premise that the media (esp. WaPo, whom the suit was specifically filed against) defamed a kid who was just standing around doing nothing. He brought the public ridicule, hatred, contempt or scorn" upon himself.

BTW, you might want to get your legals cites from somebody besides a "lawyer" who hawks his merch on Youtube. Just saying.
Really, he did it to himself?
Did he film himself, post a tendentiously edited video to social media? Publish the story in mainstream media with titles such as (IIRC) "This is the face of white supremacy"?

What you are doing is blaming the victim, and I have zero doubt you'll change your tune pretty damn fast if it was you or someone you care at the centre of a manufactured moral panic like this.

But, evidently, the kid is a convenient scapegoat for Trump, can't really hurt the big guy so lash it out on a kid, it's utterly disgusting.
  #220  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:13 PM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You hope their attack on the first amendment succeeds? Go fuck yourself.

The judge ruled that even if the facts of the case were exactly as they said, their was no legal reason that they were entitled to damages so. You can't sue a newspaper for for reporting the truth.
They did not report the truth and you are part of a hate mob piling on a kid.
Don't try to dress up your hatred.
  #221  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:16 PM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m not saying he should have won his lawsuit. Only that he doesn’t deserve to continue to be disparaged over this. Yes, he could have reacted differently, and that would have been fine. What he did was also fine.

Why are so few on the left willing to admit that the drummer was the most obnoxious player in this little drama?
No, because at a guess, that would be tantamount to recognizing that they have engaged in the sort of behaviour they'd use to define other people as vile and hateful and, well, can't admit that, can they?
  #222  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:15 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You're still doing exactly what I said, DirkHardly. You prove your logic skills not through claiming you have some sort of rewards, but by actually making rational arguments. Your reply to me, however, was not rational.



This paragraph is not logical or rational. Rather than debunk anything I've said, it simply brings up an argument I've made in the past. And then it can't even actually debunk that argument.

This entire paragraph is just a giant ad hominem. Not rational argument.



This also is not rational. For one, you misread my post, where I did not actually make assumptions, but merely explained why certain assumptions would be made. But, more importantly you actually do the very thing you claim is wrong.

You assume that I and "k9" have never felt the touch of a woman. You have no evidence of this. But you are willing to make an assumption. Yet you claim making any sorts assumptions is wrong. You ignore your own logic.



This portion of your argument has nothing to do with anything I argued. I never said anything about the general public.



This is just faulty logic. Placing your statement into conditional form: Stupid people assume the fault lies in everyone but them. BigT assumes that the fault lies is someone else. Therefore BigT is stupid.

It should now be apparent that this paragraph is merely the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.



Except that isn't incontrovertible fact. It is information that you claim to have, but none of the rest of us know it is actually exists.

It is foolish to try to refer to one's accolades to try and bolster their argument on an anonymous message board.



And this is the crutch of your bad argument. Rather than bolster your argument through showing evidence that it is correct, you argue that, because you have received some academic credentials related to logical thinking, your subsequent responses must in fact be always logical.

Even if I accept that everything you have said is true, it would have no bearing on whether or not any specific argument you have made is in fact logical. This entire line of reasoning is faulty, which is exactly what I said before.

Your logical reasoning abilities appear to be no better than that of Helmet Doork or anomalous1. Your entire reply to me is full of logical mistakes. It is ultimately nothing but an appeal to emotion.

It is perfectly rational to assume that your logical abilities are not actually all that great, based on the examples you have provided here. If you actually want to try and convince people that your arguments are rational, you need to actually argue in a rational manner.
No once again dumb fuck you get everything wrong. First of all, the comment about the touch of a woman was directed solely at you and being that I compared it with your familiarity with logic it's obviously not a literal statement. I would still bet it's essentially true but whatever. And I never said making assumptions is wrong. That's just you failing at reading comprehension once more.
What I said is making assumptions without evidence is wrong and there is no contradiction. You assumed that I was possibly lying about law school etc without any valid evidence that would even serve to cast doubt on that claim. That is making assumptions without evidence because you have exactly none. And yes it is an incontrovertible fact, because your belief in the truth of my claim or whether I provide evidence to convince you has absolutely nothing to do logically with whether something factually occurred you stupid, stupid, fuck. Yet another breath-taking logic fail on your part.

And my comment about the general public being terrible at logic has everything to do with your argument you massive waste of space. You claimed that if my posts were logical it would be self-evident. So the fact that most people are terrible at logic, a group of which you are a prime example, would be a direct rebuttal to that assertion wouldn't it? How could the logical quality of an argument possibly be self-evident to the average reader when the average reader is terrible at logic? Can you at least follow the logical thread of those few sentences?

As to debunking your logic re Trump voters and how it is completely at odds with Christian theology, if you're stupid enough to make the statement in the first place you're too stupid to see how incredibly wrong and assholish it was. But it's actually pretty simple. Self-righteousness is in no way a Christian virtue, quite the opposite in fact. That and the Bible lists exactly one unforgivable sin and according to virtually all mainstream Christian theology all other sin either condemns the sinner or is redeemed via Christ. Once again this is pretty basic and agreed upon theology and it would take a special kind of self-righteous asshole to believe that voting for one's political opponent or whatever was a sin worthy of damnation versus all that murder, rape, and what not which is ostensibly forgivable through repentance.

Another example of you missing the point entirely because you can't parse simple logic is that credentials in a field of study are incredibly relevant to issues concerning that field of study. A fact which should be obvious to anyone who isn't a moron. So yes my legal education and experience is entirely relevant in a thread about a court case that deals with those legal issues.

As far as the "accolades" etc those were never offered as support for the logic of my initial arguments but as a rebuttal to subsequent accusations made by you and the others that I don't understand logic, fail at reading comprehension etc. Accusations which were either bare assertions offered without any support or with some feeble attempts at logic on your part. As rebuttals to those accusations those "accolades" are also entirely relevant and once again whether you believe they occurred or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are factual.

I also never made the argument that because I have been logical in the past that my current argument is logical. That would indeed be fallacious reasoning which is why I never said it or even logically implied it. Instead it's ust you confusing two separate arguments because of your own failures at reading comprehension and logic. The arguments I made in this thread about the legal issues involved or the nature of objective fact vs subjective opinion are right there and speak for themselves, you and the others were just too stupid and ignorant to understand them.

But go ahead Big T, I'll provide logical arguments for whatever you still don't get. They'll almost assuredly go right over your head and you'll likely refuse to acknowledge their inherent logic or correctness but one of the benefits of actually being smart, unlike you, is being able to easily recognize stupidity when you see it and I know I have nothing to worry about.
  #223  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:36 AM
amyacker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: New York, NY, New York
Posts: 8
It was nothing but a publicity stunt by Sandman's Republican family and lawyers. They got a couple of headlines when they filed the suit so they should be more than satisfied.
  #224  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:00 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Listen, you know if you’ve spent any time at all in the Pit that lack of reading comprehension that BigT and others display over multiple years has to be an act. I don’t see how one could be a functioning adult and read as poorly as they appear to. So chalk it up to dishonesty. You aren’t going to get through to their weasely little brains because they don’t have any intention of honest debate.
I don't know, I believe they could actually be this stupid. If it's an act it's just a different variety. Unfortunately, I encounter people like them all the time. It's the downside of being smart, the depressing realization that you're all too frequently surrounded by stupid people.
  #225  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:07 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You seem to know an awful lot about where exactly the line between legal and illegal porn is. Like. A. Lot.

Why is that snowflake? You seem like the type who thinks about that a bunch. I don't know this, but I feel it strongly, and that should count for something.
Well Obscenity Law is a part of Free Speech/Press Jurisprudence but beyond that who the fuck doesn't know the essentially one kind of porn that is banned in the US? The fact that you see this as some sort of secret, esoteric knowledge really underscores what a colossal dumb fuck you are.
  #226  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:20 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by amyacker View Post
It was nothing but a publicity stunt by Sandman's Republican family and lawyers. They got a couple of headlines when they filed the suit so they should be more than satisfied.
Eh, the publicity surely wasn't unwanted but lawyers don't file frivolous suits simply for publicity as that's a serious ethics violation. Personally, I've always felt that asking for a ridiculous and completely unsupported amount in damages perhaps should be considered a potential ethics violation as well but so far it isn't in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Injured parties should only be compensated commensurate with their injuries and not because the defendant is wealthy. If part of the damages awarded are punitive or meant to act as a deterrent then the rest of the money should go... somewhere else. And not to the lawyers.
  #227  
Old 07-31-2019, 07:31 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Listen, you know if you’ve spent any time at all in the Pit that lack of reading comprehension that BigT and others display over multiple years has to be an act. I don’t see how one could be a functioning adult and read as poorly as they appear to. So chalk it up to dishonesty. You aren’t going to get through to their weasely little brains because they don’t have any intention of honest debate.
Look at that Oc, you've got somebody for your echo chamber/hive mind! Hope he likes snails.
  #228  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:17 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Really, he did it to himself?
Did he film himself, post a tendentiously edited video to social media? Publish the story in mainstream media with titles such as (IIRC) "This is the face of white supremacy"?
So you're saying the Big Evil Mass Media made him attack an old man? How clever are they!?!


Quote:
What you are doing is blaming the victim, and I have zero doubt you'll change your tune pretty damn fast if it was you or someone you care at the centre of a manufactured moral panic like this.
For a group who loves to toss around the term "snowflake" like you're in the middle of a blizzard, you sure like to play the victim card a lot.

Quote:
But, evidently, the kid is a convenient scapegoat for Trump, can't really hurt the big guy so lash it out on a kid, it's utterly disgusting.
B-O-O, H-O-O.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #229  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:19 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
The old man attacked him if anything, not vice versa.
  #230  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:19 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
They did not report the truth and you are part of a hate mob piling on a kid.
Don't try to dress up your hatred.
Go ask Matthew Shepard's family what "a hate mob piling on a kid" really looks like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The old man attacked him if anything, not vice versa.
By playing a drum? What is this, the Desi Arnaz Defense?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 07-31-2019 at 10:21 AM.
  #231  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:46 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
But, evidently, the kid is a convenient scapegoat for Trump, can't really hurt the big guy so lash it out on a kid, it's utterly disgusting.
It's people like this "kid" who have allowed Trump to be so deplorable. Trump is a symptom. People like this are the disease.
  #232  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:01 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Really how often does Fox news throw around claims of sexism and racism? Seems to be mainly the purview of the left
I prostrate myself before your supreme legal understanding of the law as demonstrated by your ability to fork over $190 to take the LSAT, but would humbly ask that with your new found mastery of all things legalistic, you would point to the statutes that would restrict the extent of the legal argument presented in the case to only accusations of sexism and racism.

It would seem to my somewhat less logical mind (having only a PhD in statistics with an H-index of 59, so being thus a far inferior intellect to the high and mighty law student) that this basically would open up any "news" organization whose disparaging remarks about someone resulting in them being hounded by social media to a multi million dollar law suit. Given that riling up the masses against some random liberal is the bread and butter of right wing media, be careful where you throw them stones.
  #233  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
By playing a drum? What is this, the Desi Arnaz Defense?

He initiated contact with the kid. It’s not much of an attack, but you were the one who introduced that word—which to you apparently means “just standing there instead of getting out of the way”.
  #234  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:08 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
He initiated contact with the kid. It’s not much of an attack, but you were the one who introduced that word—which to you apparently means “just standing there instead of getting out of the way”.
What would you instruct your child to do in that situation? Stand there and stare and smirk? Or maybe just walk away?

"Son if a man comes up to you and starts drumming in your face, the best thing to do is stand there and stare at him with a shit eating grin", somehow something tells me that is not what you would say to your son before he attended a political protest rally.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 07-31-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #235  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:12 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
And this translates into “attacking an old man” how exactly?

I would do a lot of things differently, like not send my kids to a religious school as his parents did. But I don’t think we are going to shame every parochial-schooled kid in America, are we?

ETA: Upon further reflection, I have to just laugh at your premise—as if the scenario of an old man getting in your face with his drum is something all parents naturally teach their teenagers about.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-31-2019 at 11:15 AM.
  #236  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:15 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And this translates into “attacking an old man” how exactly?

I would do a lot of things differently, like not send my kids to a religious school as his parents did. But I don’t think we are going to same every parochial-schooled kid in America, are we?
I wasn't attempting to defend the phrase "attacking an old man". I was disagreeing with the idea that there wasn't anything at all that kid could have done differently that would not have resulted in him being all over social media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
ETA: Upon further reflection, I have to just laugh at your premise—as if the scenario of an old man getting in your face with his drum is something all parents naturally teach their teenagers about.
I think talking to your kids about how to deal with strangers getting in their personal space is a pretty common thing to talk about. I would also be pretty reasonable to expect parents to have a talk to their kid before they attend a protest rally as there is potential for situations to arise that they may not know how to handle that may turn dangerous. It's pretty weird that you think this is funny actually. Seems like pretty standard good parenting to me.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 07-31-2019 at 11:18 AM.
  #237  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:18 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Uhhh...you think my response was unfair to your comment, but this one is accurate about mine? Where did I ever say there was nothing he could have done to make it less likely he was attacked on social media?
  #238  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:35 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What would you instruct your child to do in that situation? Stand there and stare and smirk? Or maybe just walk away?

"Son if a man comes up to you and starts drumming in your face, the best thing to do is stand there and stare at him with a shit eating grin", somehow something tells me that is not what you would say to your son before he attended a political protest rally.
My dad taught me to stand up for myself and not shrink away from belligerent strangers.
  #239  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:38 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
It's people like this "kid" who have allowed Trump to be so deplorable. Trump is a symptom. People like this are the disease.
Why did you put kid in “scare quotes”? He is a kid. We don’t hold kids to the same standards as adults.
  #240  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:44 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Why did you put kid in “scare quotes”? He is a kid. We don’t hold kids to the same standards as adults.
Fair point. He's more of a pawn.
  #241  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:05 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Uhhh...you think my response was unfair to your comment, but this one is accurate about mine? Where did I ever say there was nothing he could have done to make it less likely he was attacked on social media?
You've consistently argued that he bears no responsibility for how he was viewed on social media. If that's not your argument, then it sure seems like it.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #242  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:07 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
My dad taught me to stand up for myself and not shrink away from belligerent strangers.
What if its a crazy stranger with a gun in his pocket? Good thing you survived to this point. You have no idea who may be approaching you. Why jump to conflict when you have no clue who you are dealing with? Seems like a very reckless way to act for a kid.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #243  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:11 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
My dad taught me to stand up for myself and not shrink away from belligerent strangers.
Your dad seems like kind of an asshole. Next time you see him could you tell him to go fuck himself on my behalf. Thanks in advance.
  #244  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:14 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Your dad seems like kind of an asshole. Next time you see him could you tell him to go fuck himself on my behalf. Thanks in advance.
Nah, he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school by a kid who looked a bit like Nick Sandmann.

I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 07-31-2019 at 12:17 PM.
  #245  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:16 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What if its a crazy stranger with a gun in his pocket? Good thing you survived to this point. You have no idea who may be approaching you. Why jump to conflict when you have no clue who you are dealing with? Seems like a very reckless way to act for a kid.
What’s that line about cowards dying a thousand deaths?
  #246  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:18 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Nah, he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school by a kid who looked a bit like Nick Sandmann.

I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it.
This is positively dripping with projection.
  #247  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:22 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is positively dripping with projection.
Honestly, it’s the only reason I can think of why a grown man with (presumably) a host of adult responsibilities would willingly spend so much of his free time gleefully shitting on a teenager for smirking at an old man.

But whatever. I could give a fuck what motivates some random internet bully. Knock yourself out.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 07-31-2019 at 12:23 PM.
  #248  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:23 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Nah, he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school by a kid who looked a bit like Nick Sandmann.

I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it.
Yikes. You should maybe think about talking to someone. Seems like you have some real unresolved issues from childhood to work through.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #249  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:25 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What’s that line about cowards dying a thousand deaths?
Exercising restraint and not escalating a confrontation with someone that may or not be mentally ill and/or armed is being a coward? Yeah your dad did a real number on you.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #250  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:28 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Exercising restraint and not escalating a confrontation with someone that may or not be mentally ill and/or armed is being a coward? Yeah your dad did a real number on you.
Anyone could be mentally ill and anyone could be armed. What you’re proposing is nothing more than a recipe for never standing up for yourself, and allowing any random bully to just walk all over you. Seriously, that’s no kind of life.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 07-31-2019 at 12:29 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017