This thread has left my eyes pretty much glazed over, but this post (and argument) is stupid enough to wake the dead.
(Leander: income and education level almost never have any relevance to discussions, and this is not one of the rare exceptions. Why not demand to know height/weight ratio too? Jeez.)
Ah well.
As Villa has added new lies, I’ll respond to them and ask that he stick to his old, already debunked lies.
He is lying and claiming that I ever said he didn’t provide a cite and only ‘admitted’ that he did now. He knows this to be a lie as I pointed out in the original thead and twice here that I was objecting to a hardcopy cite and not one that could be read online. This is why he can not provide a quote where I say he didn’t provide a cite and only one where I say that he didn’t provide a cite that people could read and discuss (online, rather obviously, which is why I asked if he was sane enough to understand that this is not a court of law but an online discussion forum and made explicit that my objection was to a hardcopy cite when even doing the work to get that hardcopy and type it up was of dubious benefit given his record of habitual dishonesty.)
He is still unable to admit his errors on legal terminology, instead claiming that definitions which said exactly what I said they did somehow did not… and reacting with rage to being proven wrong. He still can’t admit that forcing someone to have sex by physical violence or the threat of it legally (in NY) means that the action was obtained without consent, and that simply saying you compelled someone through violence or the threat of vilolence legally means that there was no consent.
As for his claim that I have no reason to suspect his propensity towards violence: if someone can fly into a rage and imagine nefarious intent over a request for a link, in an online discussion forum… what them might they do with that berserk rage when they log off? I have a hard time believing that sort of paranoia and inchoate rage just vanish when someone like that closes their browser.
Well said. When people do this I wonder why. Are they willing to concede the debate if their opponent is taller, went to a better school, makes more money, or has a higher IQ? Very odd.
YOU are bringing up the concept of fairness?!! :rolleyes: This is some comical shit. YOU, the person who accused me of holding a particular position and, when challenged on it, is unable to provide even one instance of me putting forth that position, yet refuses to admit he was in error.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
On the flipside, you are unwilling to concede a debate when your opponent is correct. 
How would you know?
But at least I, unlike the dishonest Damuri Ajashi (redundance used as a rhetorical device), will admit to a mistake and apologize when shown my error.
Here is what you said.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As I stated, you are a lunatic, so nobody should take your word for anything without a cite that they can read for themselves to see if you’ve actually describing it.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not the one being dishonest here.
Unfortunately, that is not the legal definition. In the majority of cases, force will be accompanied by absence of consent. But both prongs are required. Hence my correction of you. The problem is that you don’t understand what force is. You are assuming the legal definition of force involves non-consent. It doesn’t. As I have told you repeatedly, the definition of force in sex in NJ is that required to penetrate the person. That’s all force is there! So, with your definition, every single sexual act in New Jersey would be considered rape. It obviously isn’t, so your definition is wrong. You are attempting to crowbar in your lay definition of force into a situation where it is a term of art.
Moreover, even in NY or CA, the states you erroneously felt backed up your definition, your definition isn’t sufficient. If a person voluntarily has sex involving acts which meet the legal definition of force in those states, then rape has not occurred. Interestingly enough, other crimes may have (such as assault) but not rape. Once again, to try to make this simple for you, you are wrong to assume that, under the law, non-consent is part of force. It isn’t. However much the masterful legal analysis of FinnAgain might want it to be.
Let’s take an example. In the state of New York, a man pins a girl down to a bed, slaps her repeatedly, and sexually penetrates her. According to your definition, this is rape. However, according to the law, it isn’t if she has consented to it. It is still assault, as assault cannot be consented to, but it isn’t rape. You seem to be under the impression that he isn’t using force there. That’s because you are using your lay definition of force, not the correct legal one.
Similarly, in Pennsylvania, if a person tells a girl he wants to have sex, and she says no, and he lies on top of her and sexually penetrates her, but does not use any other force, he has (ceteris paribus) not committed rape, however much we think he should be held to have done so. That’s because while the non-consent element is satisfied (she said no), the force element isn’t. The same situation in New Jersey, on the other hand, would be considered rape, because the very act of penetration itself is considered sufficient force to meet that element.
I said you had no evidence. Was use of the E word overlawyering? Did you once again fail to “lawyerproof” your arguments?
I didn’t fly into a rage over it, I simply remarked you were a lying disingenuous prick. You seem to think anyone doing that is in a rage. Hell, I have seen what appears to be thousands of people have that response to you over the time I have been on this board. You probably think everyone else is insane, and you are the only sane one…
And, once again, it wasn’t the request for a link that had nefarious intent. As I have told you multiple times, it was the disingenuous editing to take out the cite, to make it appear as if I had referenced nothing at all. But I guess the truth isn’t something you are familiar with.
What is interesting to me at least is how when he thought I was a woman, I was hysterical all the time, a term which he claims not to use in a sexist manner. Now he knows I am a man, I am a violent menace and I don’t recall him once using the term hysterical.
Of course, he didn’t use it in a sexist way. It was just only women who were hysterical by chance.
I never understood this point of view, though of course I do get why people express it. Especially people here on the Dope. 
For me, I absolutely take note of the opinion of well educated, successful people over basement dwelling losers. Frankly I think that’s one of the biggest problems with the Internet - everyone seems to think their opinion is just as valid and clever as the next. It’s what breeds the Internet Tough Guys like Frothy, who in real life is undoubtedly a giant loser.
Meh, this attitude is just about wasted anywhere there’s no verification. I mean, I can swear on my stack of diplomas all day that I’m a quadruple Ph.D with a Nobel, but ultimately the only thing that is worth jack on this forum is a good cite and a logical argument.
Leander knows that Zeriel, he knows full well that he’s routinely beaten on the facts and the logic whenever he rants about the Middle East, which is why literally the only things he has left are making things up about me, and ad hominem fallacies. Hell, he’s actually at the point where he’s describing offering up factual refutations of claims as the act of an “internet tough guy”.
It’s pretty obvious that he’s desperate to attack me any way he can but, as I’ve stated many times, he’s an intellectual cripple who can’t actually show how I’m wrong about anything, at all.
Fair point, but there are still some clear signs when someone is telling the truth or completely lying. And I do find it funny and telling that Frothy won’t answer the question.
Funny, I don’t recall ever “ranting” about the Middle East.
Come on, let’s face facts Frothy - you’re not only a raving lunatic projecting onto others your own crazy lying stupidity, you’re also a complete loser in real life. Just admit it already and we can move on, kid.
Sorry, have to refer to this too, as it demonstrates again that Villa is a pathological liar prone to paranoia:
As of post 513, I was still using the word “hysterical” to describe Villa’s conduct, because it’s an apt descriptor. As he’s already admitted (but is now lying about) I said in the other thread, while I still thought he was a woman, that his irrational rages made him someone who was obviously a potential danger to both self and others. From this he pretends that I’m a sexist. I’ve asked Villa to keep to old, debunked lies, but it seems he simply can’t stop once he starts lying. Too bad.
Is it any wonder why someone prone to irrational rage, unable to perceive reality, able to maintain unreasonable anger through fictionalized claims and unwilling to admit error is a person to watch out for in meatspace?
Edit: Yes Leander, you keep lying and claiming that I’m lying. Yet again, cite a single thing I’ve lied about or, naturally, just prove that other than your truly vile idiocy, you can’t refute a damn thing I say. And yes liar, you have posted about the Middle East, have had your head handed to you, and can only respond with ad hominem fallacies because you’re a literal intellectual cripple.
Actually, looking back, it seems that you really are quite the liar. Not only do you post in a good few Middle East threads, but generally you do the same thing as you’re doing here: whine and complain but never actually advance a cogent, rational argument:
You’re actually stupid and foaming at the mouth to the point where you think that flaming in GD is an appropriate way to prove your point in a debate on the subject:
Naturally, that helped feed into your persecution complex that the mods are craftily not moderating my posting in GD because I follow the rules while they moderate others who can’t engage in a debate on the subject without violating GD rules left and right.
And of course, when you can’t argue the facts in GD, you vomit vile nonsense about people’s sex lives and marriages and fantasize about their employment and…
You are, literally, an intellectual cripple. If you had half a brain you could at least understand that if I’m at all as irrational as you claim, it’d be trivial to refute my claims on factual and logical grounds. Instead, all you can do is rant and cover your absolute lack of any actual rebuttals with ad hominem fallacy after ad hominem fallacy. So, again, care to cite a single thing that I’ve been wrong about (and haven’t admitted) or a single lie I’ve told, or just more of your same bullshit?
By the way, your fascination with my sex life, marriage, job, education and IQ really do speak to something truly weird with you. It speaks to how thoroughly you’re upset by being beaten on the facts that you have to gloat about a threesome I had in grad school instead of supporting factual claims you’ve made about me.
Holy crap, that is too fucking funny. You link to page 2 of a thread that I don’t even post in until page 6! And then you say I got my “head handed to you.”
Let’s observe:
Post 295
Then Post 297
So I point out your FACTUAL error and you say I got my “head hadned to me”? You really are a strange little man, Frothy.
Then later in the thread I go on to have an interesting conversation with Alessan and Kimstu. You can read all about it on the next page. And if there is anyone who would claim my comments in that thread, which Frothy specifically linked to suggesting I “rant about the Middle East”, I would love to hear it.
Otherwise we can all agree that Frothy is once again lying like the little loser bitch that he is.
Here’s my favorite picture of Frothy. Can you imagine that crazy fucking loon sitting on a bus madly punching into his iPhone?
Too fucking funny.
Yes, you’re still proving that you can’t discuss the actual facts. As I pointed out at the time:
The question was not whether Clinton had made specific demands about anything at all ,(e.g. “housing” or “a commitment to peace”) but whether there had been specific demands as to how the peace process would proceed. Your fallacy of equivocation was not, in fact, an answer. And you’re evidently too stupid to understand that.
If you weren’t frothing mad all the time and obsessed with my job, wife, girlfriends, IQ and education, you might even realize that the fallacy of equivocation is not a factual refutation.
So, you frothing liar, care to address the other comments I quoted that show that you froth about the Middle East in full on rant mode to the point where the mods have to slap you down?
And Jesus, you really are obsessed with me, aren’t you? Now you’re crawling through my photobucket account because you’re obsessed with how I look? So, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being not knowing who I am and ten being lurking outside my house in the bushes, it’d be safe to say you’re roughly an 11.5?
Ah, problems with editing last minute, obviously your obsession over me is an 11.5 on a one to ten scale with one being not knowing who I am.
Of course, as you’ve failed to address your frothing meltdown in GD where you couldn’t even address the topic (to say nothing of your lies here about the one bit of your idiocy you would touch on), let’s see some more Leander’s Greatest Frothing Hits, yes? Like how over and over, even in GD, you can’t possible provide actual factual or logical refutations, and just froth about how angry I make you.
How about how you are a liar who gets his head handed to him for making shit up about Israel?
Later, as you’re a frothing liar, you retreated from a claim that it was a government activity to since it was an “operation” that involved “pathologists” you, well, Just had to Ask Questions:
(Irony is lost on frothing idiots)
Not only that, but I’d predicted your bullshit JAQing Off before you ever vomited it up:
Of course, you continued frothing and JAQing Off about Israeli governmental conspiracies:
And as Tom responded, you weren’t even reading the damn thread before frothing about Israeli conspiracies.
After that you told Tom that you refused to read the links and when I pointed out that it would be a good policy to read up on the topic of a thread, in the detailed links provided, before holding forth on it, you again started frothing about how much you dislike me and were stupid enough to conflate factual ignorance with a disagreement on whether or not corpses had any right to keep life-saving organs.
Naturally you were frothing and trolling to the point where you (again) had to be smacked down by a mod:
Again:
And again:
Not only did you repeatedly have your head handed to you on factual grounds as you were frothing about Israel, but you were stupid enough that despite the fact that I had posted cites detailing the course of events and investigations for a decade prior to when the American media learned of the story, you refused to read them because I’d posted them. You are nothing but a frothing idiot.
(That, by the way, is how you demonstrate someone’s actual conduct. Not desperately hunting for photos of them)
You know what - you did use it there. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make me a liar, because I said I didn’t recall you using it. I didn’t recall it. My memory was mistaken. To you that is the equivalent of being a pathological liar. Wow you are fucked up.
It certainly seems to be the case you are using the term less about me.
Stellar response to the legal argument by the way. The crickets are awfully loud.
