No fancy OP here, this fuckwit doesnt deserve one.
Look you fucking moron, just SHUT THE FUCK UP. You are nothing but a trolling prick, who knows damn well that all these blanket statements and “I am always right” posturing is carefully inserted just to piss people off.
You really think that everybody in those threads, all those doctors, women, men with direct ancedotal evidence, they are all just perverts trying to justify their sick urges? You really believe that? Like fuck you do, you are trolling like a motherfucker and its contemptible.
Diogenie the cynic. Proof that god doesnt exist, for if he did, how could he allow a trolling fucker like that to be born.
Meh. It just looks like garden-variety imperviousness to evidence, similar to flat-earthism or creationism or Birtherism* or whatever. Hardly worth a Pitting.
*a particularly apropos analogy, as part of Dio’s argument (if one chooses to apply that term to it) is that identity documents are not 100% reliable and may therefore be treated as having zero evidentiary value
No, no, the women don’t want to fuck kids, we want the men to fuck kids. Weren’t you paying attention?
I wholeheartedly approve of this Pitting. If I weren’t an atheist, I’d be begging the PTB that **Dio **gets fooled by a teenage girl and charged with statutory rape.
Dio isn’t a troll. On issues of sexuality he has very strong opinions that often have no basis in fact. He’s pig-headed and can’t admit mistakes, but he’s not trolling.
Not karmic enough. Charged with statutory rape, goes to trial, faces a jury of other Diogeneses who tune out after the opening statement and spend the rest of the trial practicing noose knots.
While I agree Dio is being somewhat dense in that thread, I still agree with him that the onus is on the adult to make sure his/her partner is above the age of consent. The fake ID’s, the “she looked older”, and the rest of the excuses just don’t persuade me.
That’s one of the functions of the jury (in this case, to determine the credibility of the defense “I acted in good faith based on what I reasonably believed to be the facts of the situation”).
Not to re-hash that whole other thread, that I didn’t even read, but I think there is relavancy here. When I was 23 and the chick looked 23, all I would have needed was an “Ok” from her. Now, as a 44 year old, if she looks 23 … what the hell is she doing talking to me in the first place?
Mostly true. I once persuaded him to ease back on an absolutist assertion that he was clamped onto; that was several years ago, though.
Again, true.
Sorry, Dio. I’ll always consider you an asset to the liberal community (such as it is), but I won’t pretend that you don’t always make it easy to keep the ledger in the black, so to speak.
In the “Why is ignorance of age not an excuse?” thread, he said if someone slipped drugs in my drink at a juice bar, that I should be guilty of a DUI should a cop pull me over, even if I could prove I did not know I had ingested drugs and that someone drugged me. One of the reasons he gave that I should be guilty of a DUI is that I should have been paying closer attention to my drink. I don’t believe he’s that stupid and actually believes this.
I also think not admitting mistakes is a form of trolling, at least when people keep responding to his posts and he pretends that he wasn’t wrong.
Just like with STD’s, pregnancy, and the crazy; you deal with the consequences of having sex with someone. God forbid you know someone well enough to know they aren’t being dishonest with you before you fuck them.
I agree, but you should only really expect someone to be reasonable. Sure, if someone very clearly looks too young, then I might question the ID; similarly, if someone looks like they might be too young, then I guess one should ask for ID. But if someone certainly looks old enough (not could pass for, but much more likely to be old enough than not based on appearance) AND has ID, what else should a reasonable person be expected to do?
You guys are missing the point: Dio is an “Expert” - it says so right underneath his username.
So, in other words, he chose to anoint himself as “Expert” - just like John Hodgman, the Resident Expert on the Daily Show. Both are eruditer-than-thou pompous windbags who expect to be treated like an authority but end up looking more than a little foolish.
I have no dog in the Dio hunt - I have no interest in getting into his Old Testament debates where he can prove he can out-Bible folks at 60 paces, or in the American Idol threads where he proves he can dismiss contestants faster than Simon Cowell. And certainly not in the “Can you look older than a Minor?” thread - eesh.
When a guy picks out Expert for himself, you have to let go of trying to change his mind - he’s a freakin’ Expert and you aren’t, you know.
But you can sure as hell mock his deluded sense of himself. You, sir, are an Expert, and I mock you for that.
Yeah, I can’t really get behind this thread even though I was smashing my head on his brick wall in the other. Dio is simply notoriously irrational about this subject, IIRC having kids of his own. I’ve seen him reluctantly give way on other subjects he chooses to be hardheaded about, but never when it comes to young women and sexual activity. It’s eyeroll-inducing, but more or less understandable.
Actually the function of the jury is to find guilt or innocence if it is a strict liability crime. It’s the function of the judge to find mitigating factors that would permit him to handle a case like that on a case by case basis.
