Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,381
Occidental Sexual Assault - Business Insider



this guy works at occidental college he talks for about the first 60 minutes all about the incident , feminism ect. He says he read the schools report on the incident that said the two students had consensual sex but they kicked the guy out anyways because elements of the root ideas of this wave of feminism are illogical.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
fanaskin_sl said:
this guy works at occidental college talks all about the incident, feminism ect he says he read the schools report on the incident that said the two students had consensual sex but they kicked the guy out anyways because elements of the root ideas of this wave of feminism are illogical.
Click to expand...
Listening to it now. Fucking enraging.
 
Lejina

Lejina

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
<Bronze Donator>
4,675
12,198
Tanoomba_sl said:
What's that? Fanaskin making another baseless attack? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you
Click to expand...
We still remember how you tried to redefine rape and terrorism for pages and pages.

Hell, you move the goal posts so much, often you end up on the opposite side of the original argument then proclaim you convinced everyone to agree with you. Shit is beyond absurd.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Lejina_sl said:
We still remember how you tried to redefine rape and terrorism for pages and pages.

Hell, you move the goal posts so much, often you end up on the opposite side of the original argument then proclaim you convinced everyone to agree with you. Shit is beyond absurd.
Click to expand...
Tanoomba states, for over a month, that there is such thing as being "too drunk to consent".
Tanoomba links several legal sources proving there is such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters argue against this point for pages and pages.
Tanoomba was right about there being such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters pretend they knew that all along.

Again,here's the proof.

It's not that I move goalposts, it's that you guys eventually get tired of making up straw men and have no choice but to acknowledge that I was right about what I was saying. Nobody here is capable of that, so you generally dishonestly re-frame how the discussion occurred to try to save face. You'll claim that my point was obvious and universally accepted by anyone right after literally pages and pages of people desperately trying to grasp at straws to findany wayto contradict this "obvious truth". It's happened several times, and it will happen again.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,442
49,112
Tanoomba_sl said:
Tanoomba states, for over a month, that there is such thing as being "too drunk to consent".
Tanoomba links several legal sources proving there is such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters argue against this point for pages and pages.
Tanoomba was right about there being such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters pretend they knew that all along.

Again,here's the proof.

It's not that I move goalposts, it's that you guys eventually get tired of making up straw men and have no choice but to acknowledge that I was right about what I was saying. Nobody here is capable of that, so you generally dishonestly re-frame how the discussion occurred to try to save face. You'll claim that my point was obvious and universally accepted by anyone right after literally pages and pages of people desperately trying to grasp at straws to findany wayto contradict this "obvious truth". It's happened several times, and it will happen again.
Click to expand...
Tanoomba states "if you're drunk you can't consent" while Mist and Tanoombatard have a SJW circle-jerk about college drinking and alcohol-fueled hookup culture
People tell him he's wrong
Tanoomba moves the goalposts to "there is a point where you can be so drunk you can't consent"
Tanoomba intentionally misdescribes the legal standard in order to make his point seem more convincing
People agree you can be so drunk that consent can't be given and we look at some case law showing that you have to be REALLY drunk for that to apply, so drunk that it almost totally doesn't apply to the college hookup culture aside from roofies
Tanoomba declares victory and says he's been right all along
People stop replying to Tanoomba's bullshit because he's a fucking troll
The end
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
It would be kinda funny if it were intentional.

But if all that were intentional Tano should be writing novels instead of message board posts.

The only positive is that I think the position is supposed to be well intentioned. It's only unlucky, I suppose is the thinking, that the consequence is to create a professional class of empowered and self perpetuating victimization.

If you're gonna argue for a social revolution you have to offer something that's better than what we've already got.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Tanoomba, pretty sure you did start out arguing that any level of drunk meant they couldn't give consent. Later on you realized that the standard was higher than that. Which honestly is a good thing, that you realized you were wrong and changed. Just don't pretend you were right all along.

I think one of the problems you had is that you were arguing alongside Mist, who seems to be for abolition of both alcohol and sex. So your fairly reasonable views got mixed up with that (well, after you realized your initial error).
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Tanoomba_sl said:
Tanoomba states, for over a month, that there is such thing as being "too drunk to consent".
Tanoomba links several legal sources proving there is such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters argue against this point for pages and pages.
Tanoomba was right about there being such thing as "too drunk to consent".
Posters pretend they knew that all along.

Again,here's the proof.

It's not that I move goalposts, it's that you guys eventually get tired of making up straw men and have no choice but to acknowledge that I was right about what I was saying. Nobody here is capable of that, so you generally dishonestly re-frame how the discussion occurred to try to save face. You'll claim that my point was obvious and universally accepted by anyone right after literally pages and pages of people desperately trying to grasp at straws to findany wayto contradict this "obvious truth". It's happened several times, and it will happen again.
Click to expand...
TAnoomba is asked to reply with an actual case of a NON minor female, who is NOT in a medical setting... Tanoonba replies with a case of a minor, with the phrase "well laws applies to them as well... don't they"
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Omg yes how could i forget about coercion.

Tanoomba_sl said:
PEOPLE WHO ARE DRUNK ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO COERCION
Click to expand...
Did you finally learn how coercion and contracts work?

And the gem...

rrr_img_77101.png
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba states "if you're drunk you can't consent" while Mist and Tanoombatard have a SJW circle-jerk about college drinking and alcohol-fueled hookup culture
People tell him he's wrong
Click to expand...
So far, so good.

Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba moves the goalposts to "there is a point where you can be so drunk you can't consent"
Click to expand...
I would argue that I corrected myself, but even if we accept the "moving goalposts" terminology, thisshouldhave been the point where everybody said "Yup, that's exactly right". It wasn't. People arguedagainstthis very point for over a month. That actually happened. I've already linked to the proof. This literally isn't even up for debate and yet somehow everyone is still pretending this wasn't the case. This isexactlywhy I can't take the "everybody else sees it so you must be wrong" argument seriously because you guys have proven many times over you'd rather go along with mob mentality than actually try to engage in a rational debate. There used to be an exception to this rule.Used tobe.

Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba intentionally misdescribes the legal standard in order to make his point seem more convincing
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I used legal definitions and legal guides extensively, I didn't misdescribe or exaggerate anything and I fuckingdareyou to show otherwise. Don't accuse me of pulling a Lithose here.

Cad_sl said:
People agree you can be so drunk that consent can't be given and we look at some case law showing that you have to be REALLY drunk for that to apply, so drunk that it almost totally doesn't apply to the college hookup culture aside from roofies
Click to expand...
So, in other words, "people actually bother paying attention and realize that Tanoomba was spot on". I have no idea what the fuck you mean about this not applying to the college hookup culture, as though college kids never get "REALLY drunk". LOL.

Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba declares victory and says he's been right all along
Click to expand...
I didn't declare victory, everyone else did it for me when they finally acknowledged that "Yes, it is possible to be too drunk to give legal consent". (Except Lendarios, but he's clearly not able to keep up, bless his heart).

Cad_sl said:
People stop replying to Tanoomba's bullshit because they don't like being proven wrong and they'd rather pretend he's a fucking troll
The end
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
I'm fine with tuition being heavily subsidized so that it's affordable to just about anyone without having to ring up a six figure debt by the time you're done a degree. But free tuition? I just can't stomach that. I know enough lazy fucks who took 6 years to finish a fine arts degree to know that shit would be taken advantage of and hugely wasteful. Even now Canada has a hard time getting enough STEM graduates because so many unique and special snowflakes don't want to actually take a useful degree. That problem would only get worse if you just let everyone go for free.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,381
khalid_sl said:
The government would. Lots of proposals to do this already, in fact many schools already offer free tuition for veterans and various other groups. Simply extend that out.
Click to expand...
everyone pays for it, not "nobody pays" is my only point.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Don't the countries that offer free tuition have exceptionally better educated citizens?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,442
49,112
I'd be fine with free govt subsidized tuition if it were harder to get into university. I'm fine with a free education for all, but not everyone needs a 4 year degree. I'm in favor of the German system, which has fairly severe tracking and entrance exams as early as middle school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.