Absolutely positively a thief. Where is the nuance here?
Please don’t go. I’m dying to get your thoughts on the proposition that just because nut-punting isn’t the appropriate response to everything doesn’t mean it is never the appropriate response to anything.
Eh? I already said it could be the appropriate response to actual, physical danger. Did you not read that bit?
Right. So just how handsy would Eddie have to get with your mother or wife or daughter (or you) before you would consider it okay to kick him full hard in the stones?
No. He negligently lost the money, she had no formal obligation to get it back to him, and his assholery forfeited the usual informal expectation that she ought to do so.
Not only is she a thief, she’s also proven herself to be a terrible human being, just like him.
PS - Why didn’t she start taking the bus at a different time to get away from him? Hmmm… maybe she was setting him up the whole time.
According to the law any unwanted contact is battery and a person is well in their rights to defend their person with such force as is required, not including deadly force, to put an end to the criminal act.
- Do I believe the groper would or should be sentenced to receive a real kick to the nuts in an actual court of law? Uh, no, it was a, I thought pretty obvious, bit of hyperbole used to illustrate my point that, although Iris is guilty of theft, her sentence, due to the circumstances, should be light (i.e. she’s only ordered to pay back the money she stole). Mr. Handsie, although perhaps entitled to receive the money stolen from him, should nonetheless be punished for his sexual assault of the thief. How about 90 days in jail instead of the hypothetical kick? And, if I were the judge, I’d apply the stolen money toward court costs in lieu of restitution for the groper.
- I have no nut-punting fantasies, although the reason you’re forbidden to speculate about them alludes me.
- You should consider adding more fiber to your diet.