I challenge the idea that PJ makes a strong case anything, ever, besides 'stratification of society fucking sucks'. He's very adept at identifying inherent problems with our current societal structure, but extremely weak at proposing practical solutions.
May 27th - Page 40
May 31st
This one is just lulzy
JULY - Appearance of "rational decisions" standard which isn't anywhere in any case law or statute and Tanoomba just totally made up
JULY 4th - Page 173
Looks suspiciously like one of Fedor's "girls", and not the chunky ones. Her and Mist should date while you jack off in the corner in approval.
Yes, they're all the same girl.
Listen, everybody says this every single time an argument happens. Believe it or not, I am at least as convinced that people like Cad and Jive and Lendarios and Mkopec are guilty of ignorant the blatantly obvious and factual as you are that I am. YouthinkI'm ignoring the factual because you (and the rest of the retard brigade) have a severe bias that forces you to try to contradict anything I say just because I said it. Youthinkyou are defending the side of logic and reason because... why wouldn't you, right? Youthinkthat because a few of you can back each other up on ad hominem attacks, that puts you in the right.
What goal post did I move? I said there is such thing as being too drunk to give legal consent (even ifactualconsent can be given), everybody ranted and raved about how fucking stupid I was, then it turned out that yes, there is such thing as being too drunk to give legal consent, even if actual consent can be given. To save face, a few people claimed that this point was never up for debate, but as I have shown repeatedly, this is complete bullshit. The one of you who was supposed to be an authority on the topic was objectively wrong on several of his statements, but still it comes down to me moving goal posts, right? You see what you want to see because you are uncomfortable, not with the idea of being wrong, but with the idea of me being right.
"Full disclosure: I was wrong when I started off saying that consent couldn't be given when drunk. That might be campus policy, but it's not law." Thats your fucking quote at page 85 after you argued fucking bullshit for days/weeks. After that you herped derped some more and now you are claiming the position everyone tried to explain to you for fucking pages and pages and say you were right all along.
/start
Well done, Ridas, you really got me. Here was the next line, which you cleverly omitted.
Which means that no, I wasn't arguingthat shitfor days/weeks. IHADbeen arguing that you can't get legal consent from someone who is too drunk for weeks, andTHATcontinued to attract unwarranted contradiction and argument, andTHATended up being right. Did you read any further in that post? You really should, because the rest of it is where I show that the positionYOU THINK"everyone tried to explain to me" is constantly and repeatedly argued AGAINST by the person who claimed to be a legal professional (Ha ha!). By the way, I didn't claim to be right "all along". Clearly, since you quoted me admitted being wrong, this claim of yours is bullshit. I am claiming to have been right starting May 31, though, and I was. There was tons of argument anyway (and continues to be, as you see Lendarios unable to come to grips with the end of the argument and grasp desperately at any straws he can find to try to give me my comeuppance), I found tons of evidence to support my claim, andthen(and only then) everyone else decided to play the "Well, that's what I was sayingall along" game (even though they weren't). The post you quoted the first line of contains plenty of proof of this.
