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

Cad_sl said:

1> Nobody said it did save his life, nor was the point of the trial whether his life would have ended then and there by any standard of proof. The question was, could he have reasonably believed his life was in danger? Which of course you willfully ignore, then go off with a bunch of bullshit tangents without addressing the actual issue.

Click to expand...

One Mr. Hodj strongly implied that the gun saved Zim's life. Instead of just acknowledging that it probably didn't (which was my point), the entire board erupted into angry jeers claiming I was holding Zim responsible for what happened, that I was making him out to be the bad guy (even though I repeated SEVERAL TIMES that Zim was justified in his actions), that I was ignoring physical evidence, etc. You can tell me what "the question was" if you like, doesn't change the fact that I made a simple truthful statement that rustled enough jimmies to fill a barn.

Cad_sl said:

2> "Being white" doesn't offer advantages. The perception of white people by everyone else offers us advantages. We didn't cause you or anyone else to have that perception. And the relevant question isn't "do people perceive white people that way." The relevant question is "now what?" Do we punish white people for people liking us? Do we put affirmative action in overdrive? Where do we go from here? But of course you don't care about that, you just want to chum the waters with your troll bait.

Click to expand...

Once again, you're telling me what "the relevant question is". People didn't respond to my statement that being white comes with advantages with "Obviously, my good Tanoomba, the real question isnow what?" Instead, it was page after page of butthurt idiocy trying to tell me that my simple statement was wrong through irrelevant tangents and angry ranting. I agree with what you just said, and I certainly do care about what should be done, but all that exists separately from this board's hard-on for contradicting me for the sake of contradicting me.

Cad_sl said:

3> Only if you twist the definition of rape does convincing a drunk girl to have sex with you become rape. Under the actual legal definition of rape (since rape is a crime, the legal definition applies), that is not rape under any but the most extreme circumstances. Once again, you ignore this though and just keep saying it as if its true.

Click to expand...

I never twisted the definition of anything. Non-consentual sex is rape. Being taken advantage of when in a susceptible state does not count as giving consent, as we have seen with the contract example (thanks again).


Now, if you guys want to learn anything from this, it's that I know how to push your buttons. I will seek out opportunities to hold a mirror up to you and force you to acknowledge simple, yet uncomfortable truths. If you remember this the next time it happens, you can respond with "Yes, Tanoomba, technically you have a point, but what we'd really like to get at here is X..." instead of embarrassing yourselves saying stupid nonsensical shit just because you don't like me and are desperate to try to put me in my place, logic be damned.

Jx3_sl said:

Defending women and hating on men is Tanoombas schtick. Does it count as trolling if he (possibly she) .....(actually its Rerolled so it may have been one then the other, who fucking knows) actually believes what they are writing?

Click to expand...

I'm not defending women here, nor am I hating on men. I don't even know how you could get that impression. For Christ's sake, a third of rapes are caused by women and you guys are choosing to ignore that because you'd rather believe those rapes don't count. Why are you defending women rapists? Why aren't you allowing men who have been raped to get justice?WHY DO YOU HATE MEN?

Arbitrary_sl said:

Just keep saying the same disproved shit every single fucking day.

Click to expand...

It has yet to be disproved even once. It's been yelled at, sure. But disproved? Those are two different things, you know.

Trollface_sl said:

Lithose we have been saying the same thing and its not working out.

Click to expand...

Dude, I know you don't like to address me directly, but I really need to know...

Which is it:

a) Women commit a third of rapes, most of which involve taking advantage of a drunk man, therefore taking advantage of a drunk person for sex counts as rape.

b) Taking advantage of a drunk person for sex does not count as rape, therefore the "1/3 of rapes are committed by women" statistic is bullshit.



Choose wisely.

Araysar_sl said:

So next time I'm going drinking and I get behind the wheel of the car, I'm not responsible for my actions? Awesome.

Basically being drunk absolves me from responsibility for anything.

P.S. Raped a girl last night after work. She had 1 beer and enjoyed herself quite a bit.

Click to expand...

All of that's been addressed several times over. Keep up or get out, your trolling isn't even amusing.

Rhinohelix_sl said:

It's not even that; Taroomba is taking the position that a single drink/any drinking whatsoever removes all agency.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.