Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Double_R
There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.No one is arguing that Trump does not have the right to assert his innocence
No one is admitting to arguing that. That doesn't mean no one is arguing that.
If you remove Trump's statements asserting his innocence and his statements pointing out the lack of evidence against him all that are left are matters of public interest, statements of opinions, and as you said insults and belittlements (which are not defamatory since forever).
and the case is not about whether he called her a liar.
Fine, strike them, I'll remind you if you ever deign to actually give a list of so called defamatory statements.
I would explain what it's about, but that's what we've been talking about for days now.
I sense someone putting on a parachute.
I cut it off because it is just gibberish nonsense.
Uh huh, but remember this:
[ADOL] To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.[Double_R] Of course you are, because you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do.
If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.Ok, we'll do the mint analogy.Biden took one mint. Hell, we'll say he took two. Trump took an entire bag.
Trust the FBI, of course you're not allowed to count them yourself!
The restaurant didn't even notice the two mints were missing, they noticed the missing bag though.
Biden runs the restaurant when they noticed....
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.
After sending the waiters...
When the waiters caught up to Trump, not only lied about having them, he had his date hide them in her purse and also tell the waiters she never saw them.
More like he told his date to handle it, the date gave them one, he said "there you go, now fuck off", and then they smashed the car windows to search the car and found another one.
Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.
He was claiming that all along. Also Obama agrees. Also every other manager has taken mints.
If Trump really believed the mints were his he would have never lied about having them and tried to hide them in the first place.
That's TDS that can't be sorted out here. Focus on the core claim: That he's not allowed to take the mints. If that is true, then it is also true of Biden.
These are not the same thing.
You're pretending they're not because you're assuming intent matters and then assuming that anyone has in anyway proven Trump's intent was pure and Biden's was not. A lot like pressuring Ukraine. Quid pro quos are fine if your heart is in the right place (that place is apparently the CIA).
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat.The link is 44 pages long. Not sifting through it to figure out what your point is. Make it by typing words and I'll be happy to dig into it.
I only posted the link so you could confirm. The quote is right there. "After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents."
The deep magic you're looking for is Ctrl-F.
You continue to pretend this is a black or white issue, as if you're either a public figure or you're not, and all public figures are exactly the same. That's silly.
So it's a continuous variable from 0 to 1, and only people who you approve of get to cherry pick which legal standard to use where. How convenient.
Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.And yet no one in the public seemed to be concerned about this until Trump played right into it.
Doesn't matter if nobody bought it or read it. She made it a public issue by publishing. Lookup the roots of the words public and publish. Just like any tweet is public even if nobody reads it until someone famous responds.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversiesShe obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does.That's why I put "forefront" in italics. Anyone can accuse someone, that doesn't mean anyone else will care.
That might be an argument for why Trump's reputation wasn't harmed. Not why EJC is not putting her reputation on the line by attempting to create a public controversy.
I could repeat this point a hundred times and you will continue to respond as if I never made it or as if this point is not relevant when it absolutely is.
Well you are correct that repetition won't change my mind.
NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE.
I WOULDN'T CARE IF THAT WAS TRUE. She accused him of rape. She accused a former president of rape. Publicly. That's a public controversy. A controversy, that is public. She featured prominently in this controversy (being the sole supposed witness). Thus she featured prominently in a public controversy.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.lol ok bro. Trump spent the whole republican convention in 2016 feuding with a gold star family because they criticized him. The man has deep insecurity issues.
No seriously, if nobody brought that book to his attention he wouldn't have known to attack her. In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation.
This isn't defamation because (among other reasons) it would violate the 1st amendment if it was. There is no contradiction, you and the fake court are just nuts.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.And yet again... Everyone in our society already had an opinion of OJ Simpson. There is almost nothing that a single person on planet earth could have said about him that could have caused him significant reputational harm, so to assert that the mere suggestion that he was guilty - something even most people in his own inner circle had already figured out - would have been a case for defamation is beyond stupid.
It would be stupid, but your theory of defamation is also stupid so it makes stupid predictions.
Public figures can still be sued for defamation if there is actual malice (the legal meaning). You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.
Therefore anyone who claimed Simpson was guilty would be doing it with actual malice because they were contradicting a jury verdict.
Created:
Defamatory statements by Best.Korea:
He was found guilty on sexual abuse [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422589]
LCC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped at the time when most people would blame her for being raped? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped in circumstances where rape victims didnt have any support, and because she had no way of dealing with it at the time? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 2
mock rape victims [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422877]
LRC = 3
Well, saying that rape victim gave hints of wanting to be raped is a horrible way to defend Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422912]
LRC = 4
saying that rape victim wanted to roleplay rape is also a horrible way of defending Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422917]
LRC = 5
You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Unfortunately, that's just not a claim Korea can prove; and as the thread shows everybody is in agreement that calling someone a liar is defamatory.
Defaming members +1
while lying that you didnt claim how she wanted to be raped [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
while lying about her that she has a rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
again you assumed that people who were raped cant have rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
to support that she wasnt raped by again lying that she has a rape fetish. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
What woman doesnt want to listen to Gp's endless conspiracy theories, link spam, whining, promoting civil wars, and lying about rape victims? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422977]
Defaming members (GP) +1
LRC = 6
Not if they derail those who promote civil war and who lie about rape victims. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10387/posts/423265]
Defaming members +1
LRC = 7
[Greyparrot out of context] I can just imagine all those little Catholic boys[Best.Korea] I didnt know that you were gay. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423586]
Defaming members (GP) +1
Total defamation against members = 8
Created:
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Gotten away from the subject but since I saw this , I'll ask about it.Do you think sexual abstinence is a superior form of birth control than any other contraception?
It's 100% effective, but that is the only way in which it is superior.
There is reason to suspect the side effects of hormone based birth control are more trouble than they are worth.
Condoms are not reliable enough to use alone, and they do slightly decrease pleasure.
I don't know a lot about the cervix-blocking stuff, they say it can go wrong and cause pain/bleeding; but really what can't?
Avoiding fertility windows is obviously quite prone to error, it should on paper be pretty effective and combined with condom and pill or condom and IUD thingy. The 'problem' is that it avoids the very fertility window where women are most sexual. So it's a bit of "now that you're not in the mood it's safe"
If natural sex is what people absolutely can't live without then they should use two contraceptive strategies at the same time.
Yet I often see people talking like it's contraception or abstinence, I wonder how sheltered people are when they say that. There are plenty of ways to interact sexually besides the one that ends in pregnancy.
The worst contraceptive strategy that is 99.99% effective is still way less money, pain, hassle than an abortion.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Paywall, can't tell where they got that number. Sounds wrong by a factor of 10.
Created:
Defamation +1
Created:
-->
@FLRW
LINK!It is calculated that more than 26,000 rape-caused pregnancies may have taken place in Texas alone. The findings were published on Wednesday in JAMA Internal Medicine.
26k rapes. Jeez
Created:
Posted in:
There are species more naturally monogamous.
We're intelligent, that means we have complicated reproduction modes. The dominant and by far the least disruptive to a community is monogamy.
Followed by promiscuous men.
Followed by promiscuous women.
Something many people confuse themselves with is focusing on the sex itself. It's about the kids.
Women don't have a mode of reproduction where they don't have to invest a lot of resources. They select the gene donors carefully, but what they want more than anything is a reliable supplier of resources.
A woman can easily have more kids than she or any one man can take care of. The limiting factor is resources and our instincts reflect that.
That's why women have been perfectly happy in harems, so long as the harem male is fabulously rich.
Men can father children without investing any resources. Men in this instinctual mode only care about the sex. They don't need to admire the woman because they don't care if the children have good genes. They don't care if the woman is wealthy or if she can take care of the kids.
Civilization tries to discourage this mode. Then contraceptives made it safe for men and women. The problem is that only men have an instinctual mode that finds this satisfying, and even then it turns into a hollow satisfaction as they realize they're alone and nobody had their kids.
Women want to cheat when they think other men are superior and their resources won't be threatened. It's a lot easier when you don't have to worry about giving birth to a kid who looks nothing like the father.
Men can share, but instinct/evolution says to only share with closely related males. Instinct can be overcome but it's more likely that if men share they think of the other male as a brother.
---------------
Calling something unnatural is almost always true in a specific context but not in another. We decided we're unnatural but that is just a convention for speaking about the cognizant vs non-cognizant range of possibilities.
Building a house is unnatural in the classic context of the word, but it isn't wrong.
Interspecies sex is natural in the classic context of the word, but - well I'm sure you know how people feel.
---------------
I think contraceptives are great. More tools the better. I think that people should be free, and irrational condemnation of victimless sexual behavior (or relationship) is wrong.
I also think that monogamous heterosexual marriage based on genuine love (emotion which connected to admiration of genes and being a reliable asset) with 2-5 kids is the happiest human beings are going to get on average and anyone who tells kids anything else is making the world worse.
Avoid the two errors:
Conflating the unnatural with the evil
Assuming that anything less than the best is the bad, it could and often is a lesser good
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I hope everybody saw my sarcasm in my last post.
I'm sure most did, some of those won't admit it though.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers.
There is no global limit to special prominence.
Nobody knew the name "George Floyd" before the media went crazy. Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.
No one knows any of their names except Ms. Carroll and they only know her name because Trump attacked her repeatedly.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversies
She obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does. She didn't just put herself into a public controversy she manufactured one.
Moreover, think of how absurd your argument is here. Accusing a public figure of rape makes you a public figure, which makes you immune from being defamed.
A public figure in regards to the accusations yes, and in fact making any criminal accusations what so ever is a matter of public interest. If she had published no books and done no interviews and only filed a police report (a public record) her credibility becomes a matter of public interest.
Crimes are serious things, there isn't the slightest problem with people putting their reputation on the line when they accuse others because they are putting the reputation of others on the line.
So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.
It's necessary. The alternative is violating the 1st amendment and creating a society where courts can't be questioned.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.
If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.First of all, the first amendment does not give one the right to defame someone else, so that is irrelevant to this.
Where the 1st amendment and your idea of defamation conflict the 1st amendment remains and your notion yields.
Second and more importantly, you are again asserting the allegation of rape itself is an attack
Insofar as speech is war, yes.
so in your world the act of being raped is itself a forfeiture of one's right to live free of being attacked should they ever tell anyone (as that would now be considered a counter attack
There is no right to live free of being "attacked" by other people's opinions of you.
Yes there are costs to accusing someone of a crime, even if you're right, even if 12 jurors agree with you. The alternatives are even worse. That's why the 1st amendment exists. People are allowed to disagree and question your credibility.
Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump.Complete nonsense. No one cared about EJC's claim until Donald Trump repeatedly attacked her, and even then no one cared about the underlying accusation
Then why did someone ask Trump about it?
Can you quantify the number of people that think any worse of EJC for a false statement of Trump's?
the story was the defamation trial.
If it was the defamation trial that damaged her reputation than how come Trump was found liable (by a pseudo-jury) as opposed to... well the plaintiff?
After Access Hollywood we all moved well beyond being shocked that Trump would commit sexual assault.
I see, so after that point Trump could not be defamed by accusing him of sexual assault because everyone already believed he was someone who would commit sexual assault.
Now, explain to me why you think the following person exists: Someone who believes Donald Trump is capable of sexual assault, who didn't know about EJC, but after Trump called her a liar, thought less of EJC.
You claimed that damage to reputation was a necessary condition of defamation and further implied that if people's minds were already made up there was no damage to be done. Square the round peg please.
You don't get to bottle up all of your frustrations built up from multiple aggressors and use it as an excuse to take it all out on one person.
You need to stab everyone equally. I see Trump's error now. He should have called all the people who accused him of rape liars regardless of whether they wrote books and went on TV.
What did you say:
That is completely ridiculous.
Yea I don't think your analogies and statements are working well together.
When you get back to it don't forget:
Trump isn't being charged for taking the documents home. He's being charged for lying to federal investigators and his flagrant attempts to stop the federal government from retaining it's property,
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:
[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]
I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat. What does that mean by your standards of behavior: "...you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do."
AND:
You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory. The argument to absurdity stands.
Created:
Sole victim per accusation? No corroborating evidence? Yes.[IWRA] Really? So in 1972, long before dash cams and body cams, a police officer pulls over a driver on a deserted highway. The police officer ends up arresting the driver and charging him with resisting arrest. Besides the testimony of the police officer, what proof is there that the driver resisted arrest?So the driver goes free, right?
He/she should. This is the reason that police worked in pairs before cameras.
Touché[IWRA] This is part of the problem. MAGA MORONS like yourself a pretty clueless when it comes to facts.
rofl, that's right. You haven't gotten any facts wrong in this thread or in general.
Oh wait:
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
Created:
Then listen to the un-indoctrinated like ADOL and GP.[IWRA] lol, to the morons, uneducated and alone means un-indoctrinated.
Hey, why don't you claim David is lying about having a wife and daughter? I'll add it to your tab. It's $1,953,230,500 per defamation against site members.
Created:
Yes he would go free, and should go free, because it is better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.[IWRA] Really? So all these black guys who were convicted and imprisoned based solely on the testimony of the victims were all miscarriages of justice?
Sole victim per accusation? No corroborating evidence? Yes.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
He's already on the hook for $3,906,461,000:
He just doesn't seem to believe in these standards in reference to himself or apparently Joe Biden.
Created:
[IWRA] Really? so if their were no witnesses then he would just go free, right?
There was one witness. It's not enough. Multiple witnesses reporting the same thing without prior conspiracy to tell a lie reduces the doubt considerably possibly below the level of reasonability.
Yes he would go free, and should go free, because it is better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.
This is, to quote Double_R, basic stuff.
You too believe this. If you didn't then you would believe that Joe Biden is a rapist too.Oh? Is credibility a factor? Credibility and character of both the accused and the victim? Is testimony a factor? Is it hard to lie on the stand with 12 jurors staring at you?
Is it?
You 'know' Trump is evil and Biden is good and so did that pseudo-jury. Problem solved.
Created:
He's a racist and feels better if he pretends others are racists.Curious to know why the assault was so specific, IWRA.
Created:
[IWRA] If you were assaulted by a big black guy, and you went to the police to report it. Can you identify your own attacker?
Of course I can, but anyone who convicts a man because of my recollection alone has violated their oath as a juror.
Why should the police or a jury believe you
They can believe me till the cows come home, but if they have no reasonable doubts they are unreasonable persons.
It is a long and well established fact that eye witness testimony is not reliable. Therefore by definition there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a witness is telling the truth and remembered correctly.
You too believe this. If you didn't then you would believe that Joe Biden is a rapist too.
Created:
A jury who heard all the facts in court believe her.
All the facts: She said so, her friend said she said so a while ago.
What an avalanche of facts. Of course the only relevant "fact":
Trump is an orange racist, save democracy.
Created:
If they got raped, do you think they would have deserved it?Of course not. Why would you ask that?Because you don’t believe E Jean Carroll . You think she lied about the rape to make money. A jury who heard all the facts in court believe her.
Your brain on TDS: Lie about rape = was raped and wanted to be raped
Created:
It really looks like she took advantage of him with this defamation case. Can't say I blame her considering the position she sits on and how much Money Trump has.
..... there is this thing called morality, just because you can do a thing and it would benefit (by one particular metric) you doesn't mean you should.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
More defamation... 1 count of lying about a conviction and one count of lying about a rape. Additional penalties are $150,000,000
Created:
You know what kind of people think the deep state is a conspiracy? The ones who confuse the capitol building and the white _ house.You know what kind of people believe the deep state exists? The kind of people who think White House is one word.
Created:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851][Best.Korea] Yes. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422858][ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862][IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
The collusion with the whitehouse is also relevant, anyone who is paying attention already knows the deep state exists. What is less clear is how disciplined and meticulous they are. The fact that their conspiracies are exposed so often (it seems with ever increasing frequency) indicates they're taking bigger and bigger risks and making more and more mistakes.
Created:
This is relevant because it's what lawfare looks like when both sides are fighting.
One side pretends like the law means something absurd so they can lock Trump up.
The other side pretends like hiring your boyfriend and skipping paperwork dissolve accusations.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Huh? You lost me there
The feeling is so mutual, scratch that; you can't fathom how quickly you lost me.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the JudgeThere were multiple statements. For the full list you can see the actual ruling here. Start on page 4:
"Ms Carroll's accusation that Mr. Trump "raped" her first became public on June 21 2019"
The pseudo-court asserts that EJC defamed Trump. Interesting admission.
Statement One:
Trump denies meeting her. - Doesn't affect reputation, hasn't been proven or disproved
Trump claims her motivation is to sell a book. - Opinion
Trump claims the book should be sold in a fiction section. - Opinion OR a statement that the book contains falsehoods
Trump shames those who make up false stories of assault, names Julie Swetnick not EJC. If he did name EJC that would merely be a denial of a crime. Protected speech, any accusation against a public figure is a matter of public interest
Trump claims there is zero evidence for Julie Swetnick's accusation. - Protected speech, any accusation against a public figure is a matter of public interest
Trump point out there are no pictures, surveillance, video, reports, sales attendants, clearly arguing that there is no evidence against him. All arguments to the innocence of a person of a crime are forever protected by the right to confront accusers and all criminal matters are matters of public interest. That's why court filings are public.
Trump denies the incident occurred. All denials of a crime are forever protected speech and all criminal matters are matters of public interest. That's why court filings are public.
So not only can Trump deny he committed a crime, I can deny Trump committed a crime. In fact I can deny that any random person anywhere in the world committed a crime. It's accusing people of a crime without evidence that may be subject to defamation liability.
Trump points out that false accusations diminish the severity of a real assault. True, and a matter of opinion, and protected speech (matter of public interest), and not mentioning EJC. (layers upon layers of lawlessness was required to survive dismissal)
Donald Trump asks for information as to whether Carroll is working with the democratic party. If that's defamatory I guess working with the democratic party damages one's reputation. It's about time that become the case.
Trump says people should pay dearly for such false accusations. Yes they should, it's called defamation. EJC would be liable if Trump could produce an alibi. Unfortunately the crime apparently took place 1995 +- 1.5 years, making it difficult. You can try to report a crime that happened sometime within a three year period 20 years ago, it should give the police something to smile about after you hang up.
Trump denies he met her. Points out (quite reasonably) that being in a coat line with someone does not constitute meeting them.
It goes on like this. It's just Trump denying that he committed a crime or even met her over and over while making commentary about matters of public interest.
Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation.
Via the magic of TDS two non-defamatory statements combine into a defamatory statement.
Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation.
@Greyparrot, what you don't understand is that there was more than one cherry. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!
Not only did he deny raping someone, but he said that false accusations are bad and there is no evidence. That proves it! Let's end English common law. Guilty until proven innocent. Liable is guilty. Once 4 people in NYC say something happened or didn't happen that's it the end of public discussion. Retroactive defamation is a thing too!
You know what would be really fun, making a town of moon landing deniers, and then having a civil trial against NASA. Then, anyone who calls a moon-landing-denier wrong is guilty of defamation. Penalties should start at over a billion 300 million trillion 300 million dollars.
As I eluded to with ADOL, insults and belittlement as well as repetition all plays a role.
Insults and belittlement are defamation now, or make other statements defamatory where they weren't before. This is what Double_R claims to know of defamation law and precedent. Until humanity understands the psychology that created this fracture in reality in his brain, we will never have peace.
is whether a person acted with malice.
(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset".
Something that is always a question when it comes to expression of TDS.
Again... It's only one small piece of the story.
The world is full of magic. Non-defamatory statements combine and become defamatory. Orange men become fascists. *tribal drum beats*
You continue to break the case apart and evaluate each individual part as if it occurred in isolation.
Yep, don't look too closely. That's not what courts of law are for, looking at details and all.
Feel like I've said that before.
I feel like you're going to say it again. It will mean nothing when you do, as it means nothing now, as it meant nothing last time. You're trying defend a hopeless joke resolution, of course you can't get into specifics.
Again... A major part of proving defamation is demonstrating that the defendant acted with malice.
(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset".
This is, in fact, basic stuff that you pretend to not understand.
There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming Trump's "she's not my type" comment was intended to do anything other than insult Ms. Carroll's appearance
There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming that an insult is defamation or makes any other statement defamatory.
Or if you need it put more simply... He's making fun of her. Everyone in his audience knows this.
Yes. Rather tame for someone who falsely accused him of rape if you ask me. I would be a lot meaner.
Making fun of someone in an unwelcomed fashion is malicious by definition.
Not a legal definition.
(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset". Reassertion Count: 3
Moreover, because Trump actually mistook her for his own wife the claim is now reasonably established as factually inaccurate.
Everybody is liable for misreporting relative sexual attractions got it.
it also establishes a wreckless disregard for the truth
rofl, *gets up drinks some water comes back to the screen, rereads*, rofl (back on the floor)
"When you said my client wasn't hot was that not a reckless disregard for the truth? I mean LOOK AT HER!"
"That makes perfect sense, 86 million dollars pay up"
Oh I'm sorry did I focus too much? Here let me take the glasses off. Oh my, I can't read the words but that paragraph sure is long! Trump must be guilty of rape and insurrection and eating babies!
TDS turned a quarter of America into clowns but the oath keepers are the problem. Yea...
Do you understand now?
You're trying these profoundly absurd arguments, rewriting four hundred years of jurisprudence and for whom? You'll never convince a rational person and the irrational TDS possessed zombies will agree with you regardless of what you say. I mean look at FLRW:
"Trump voter: Ah luv thee Donald, e has 5 times the brain power that ah hav!"
That's all you need to do. It accomplishes the same thing (absolutely nothing).
I wonder if this is about you. Do you feel that you're convincing yourself?
(2) the natural and realized impacts of Trump's actions.
We need to stop Trump. With the bully pulpit he owns he can cause any woman in the world to be perceived as unattractive by simply uttering the phrase "She's not my type".
This kind of power is too much for any one man to hold!
Cool, then she can stop pretending that she does.She's not, that has absolutely nothing to do with defamation.
So very true.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then she showed a recent Truth Social post in which Trump vowed to deny the allegations "a thousand times."
Apparently Double R believes you're only allowed to deny accusations once if you're POTUS.
What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the Judge then if Politico is lying to both of us?
Well let's see his answer to this question. My bet: "Well it's not one thing you see, it's an attitude problem" -> He's orange, and racist, CNN told me so
Created:
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When someone writes a book about a public figure and goes on TV to talk about public figures they become a public figure.Many of Trump's accusers have done television interviews, that doesn't make them public figures in any meaningful sense.
They did television interviews accusing a public figure of serious offenses. That is about as meaningful as it gets.
or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.
This is really basic stuff.
That you pretend to not understand.
The problem is that he attacked her repeatedly and relentlessly, and did it in the most public way possible.If one instance wasn't defamation, neither were a hundred.Repetition has a greater impact on public perception than non repetition.
The shaping of public opinion isn't the disqualifier. The nature as opinion and the impossibility of establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt are.
This is really basic stuff.
That you pretend to not understand.
The right to respond includes proportionality.Cite law. Cite precedence. You're making things up.You haven't cited a single law or precedent in this entire conversation.
You didn't read.
Regardless, I'll be happy to dig further into this as soon as you claim that disproportionate responses are justified. Go on, tell me that's what you believe. And when you do you might want to think about what the term "excessive force" means.
I'll tell you what "excessive force" does not mean: communication.
If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.
Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump. Nothing is disproportional after that.
Carroll was nothing more than an accuser in a sea of accusers.
Irrelevant. Actually if there are a bunch of people "pushing you" you are in more danger. So if you believed your own analogy a relevant defense for "stabbing"
If Trump treated her like any normal person running a country would have, none of us would have ever heard of her.
Well if you're just going to do the reassertion thing (and of course you were always going to), I'll just start tallying it to make a point.
answer: (1) Your opinion of decorum has no legal relevance. Reassertion Count: 2
Trump went way beyond all of this. EJC was just a private citizenWho publicly accused him of rape. End of story. Nothing else is relevant.Not how the law works, nor should it.
It is how it should work, it is how it did work. It doesn't matter what a judge thinks. It doesn't matter what a jury thinks. It doesn't matter what a prosecutor thinks. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.
Turns out when you decide to shut your brain down, no further arguments prevail. Who knew?
You do, that's why you keep doing it.
To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.Of course you are, because you have no response to it.
Violence is not similar to speech in a relevant way. That is the response.
and they followed that process.They did not.And yet you can't present a single argument to back that up other than your opinion of how you think the law should work.
You cut off the next sentence: "the absolute certainty that they broke their oaths to deliberate on the evidence and render a decision regarding the law mean we know there is no legal force."
Out of order:
Of course you are, because you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do.
Guess you had no response so you just removed it from the quote.
Taking home top secret documents is not like taking home top secret documents if you don't argue when someone asks for them.People walk out of stores with unpaid merchandise all the time. What we wouldn't do is treat the guy who turned around and bright it back to the store the same as the guy who shoved it down his pants and tried to peel off as soon as he was stopped.
To correct your analogy it would be more like taking a mint from a restaurant that you thought was complimentary home and setting it in a tray for years and when they ask if you have it and you say "maybe, it would be mine anyway fuck off" they send in swat teams and some other guy who also took a mint but held onto it for three times as long then returned it (probably after getting wind that they better not get caught as hypocrites when the rules magically changed).
If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.
Basic common sense.
That ignorance is actually an excuse for breaking a law? I agree. Pity you have double standards.
Trump isn't being charged for taking the documents home. He's being charged for lying to federal investigators and his flagrant attempts to stop the federal government from retaining it's property,
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:
[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]
I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat. What does that mean by your standards of behavior: "...you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do."
Denying a crime is like a linebacker breaking a woman's jaw.He didn't just deny the crime.
He broke her jaw too?! Oh, lol sorry I thought you were being a serious person for a moment.
You're either being brazenly dishonest or are breathtakingly ignorant of the case you continue to rail against in your quest to engage in civil war. It really is amazing to watch.
Get some popcorn. The show isn't over.
If you can't figure out how appealing a conviction fails to meet the four basic elements of defamation then I have nothing more to say to you, your brain doesn't work.
Mmm.....
You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory. The argument to absurdity stands.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the act itself of measuring affects quanta.
Try to put that statement to the test in a specific example. The double split experiment is about the detection of single photons. To do this EM radiation must be heavily attenuated, that is you need a very weak wave and they do this by letting the wave in through a tiny hole and then letting it spread out for a long time.
When we say "quanta" what do we mean. We mean the properties of a discreet wave collapse (AKA particle) such as mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge.
In the case of a photon there is no mass or charge but there is energy and polarization. There is a formula for calculating the energy of a 'single photon' and it depends only on wavelength which is indeed a property of the quantum wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy
With careful calculation you could calculate all the energy that could possibly be transferred by the portion of the quantum wave that made it into the box.
Now what do you mean "measuring affects quanta"? Do you mean the energy of the wave changes because part of it collapsed into a photon? That is absolutely true. Do you mean that the energy detected at one point of wave collapse would be different than the energy at another point from the same original wave? That's not true if the wavelength hasn't changed.
Every photon will have the same energy when it is recorded.
Perhaps the most important question is what do you call non-measuring? If you are using "measuring" to mean "any wave collapse" then the obvious outcome of "non-collapse" is the wave keeps propagating. The only way it can do that is if it just keeps traveling through space forever. Do you call that affecting the photon? I say there is no photon outside of the context of a collapse. There is nothing to affect. The properties of the wave cannot be changed.
But maybe all I'm establishing is that humans can affect reality, and that's not at all much of a statement?
If you mean affect reality by applying energy against the gradient of entropy (creating dense localized order), you know like building a double slit experiment or closing a door, then yea that's not really news. I don't think that's what people talk about when they say "the particles are affected by measuring them.", I think they believe schrodinger's cat is in a superposition of dead and alive because nobody's mystical spirit perceived information from within the box, and that is baseless absurdity.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
in the double slit experiment... isn't the act of measuring causing different outcomes?
No. The outcome of the experiment is decided at the instant of wave collapse and that will occur when the wave encounters a surface with reflection or absorption regardless of whether there is a Geiger apparatus behind that surface or whether a human is observing that Geiger counter.
If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? If you define sound as pressure waves then yes.
If a quantum wave collapses into discreet quanta (like a photon) does it transfer energy to new wave(s)? Yes
and you said 'wave collapse affects quanta'.
More like quanta exist in only association with a wave collapse. I would not say wave collapse causes quanta or vice versa. It's just a name for the transition from one quantum wave to a new one manifested at a single point in time and space.
The first wave disappears, no matter how large it was. Its properties such as energy manifest at a single point. A new wave emanates from that single point, but sometimes that single point was a preexisting standing wave (something massive, stable, and that can move slower than the speed of light) that has been modified by the new energy/momentum/charge.
if wave collapse is affected by the outside reality, which we manipulate, how isn't that a matter of observation or measurement?
All observation is interaction but not all interaction is observation. I'm talking about the definition of the word "observe" and "measure", it implies consciousness and knowledge. There is no such requirement.
Of course if we put a rock in front a beam of light we've caused photons to manifest from EM (quantum) waves sooner than they would if no rock had been there, but rocks can exist without people putting them places and photons still manifest without an observer.
That is what I mean.
Created:
Insufficient data. I doubt there is any evolutionary advantage to NDE. What many people don't understand are corollary epiphenomenon.
Like people thinking kittens are cute. Do you think taking care of kittens was specifically selected for? No.
There is a general instinct which evolved to identify children. Its dialed up to 10 because it's better that you never find your own offspring anything but deserving of all your coddling than to waste effort on the baby of another person or of another species.
Generalization of intelligence and instincts is itself a trait that was selected for. Generalize (or abstracted) systems are flexible and thus resilient to changing conditions.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
some folks say like the double slit experiment, that the particles are affected by measuring them.others say often on the topic of quantum mechanics, that simply observing particles at the quantum state affects them.
Observation isn't the right word. Neither is measurement.
Interaction is better.
Wave collapse is best.
Why? Because it's a new phrase that doesn't bring any false connotations from elsewhere.
It is impossible to observe the state of a quantum wave directly. The only thing that can be observed is the energy that manifests at a single point in space in the instant of wave collapse.
In communicating that fact some have misscommunicated the idea that it is observation itself that collapses the wave. This is not the case. It is certainly not the case that a conscious mind must be the observer. In the double slit experiment the true "observer" to the collapse of the photon was the valance shell of a mindless atom. The changes there caused a chain reaction that eventually led to a human knowing EM energy manifested there "a photon stuck here"
the bigger implication, is that there's those who say our consciousness can affect reality.
It's easy take something we don't understand and say "what if" in fact it's a lot of fun, but if it's called science instead of science fiction that's a problem because it's deceptive.
What I can say for sure is that quantum mechanics does not have a "consciousness factor". It makes the exact same predictions in a universe without people as a universe with people.
If consciousness can affect reality (beyond sending brain signals to a body), it's not by any currently described mechanism and even if our minds could cause wave collapse, they certainly aren't the only thing that can cause wave collapse. In fact in the time it took you to read this there have been innumerable wave collapses in the a single cell of bacteria infesting your gut. You didn't know about them, that didn't matter.
Created:
Posted in:
The reason is quite rational. Reminding you any an unfortunate soul who comes across this website what an irrational hypocrite you are. Otherwise they might just think there is something like a point in trying to explain your endless misconceptions or point out the many contradictions you advance.[IWRA] You’re the hypocrite.
Yet somehow it's always me with the links to the posts proving hypocrisy and never you or the other zombies.
[IWRA] You support a moron like Trump to be President when he is the epitome of personal attacks.
A hypocrite is someone who doesn't follow the rules of behavior they proclaim for others. If I said Trump is flawless then I would be proclaiming that everything he does in accordance to my rules. But I don't therefore I am not a hypocrite no matter what Trump does.
In the extreme case: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons." = supporting someone politically is not endorsing them morally
Even Trump hasn't blurted out "what about your dead mother loser" because he was losing a debate (I've never seen him debate but that's besides the point).
Created:
Posted in:
I follow rules
Then follow your own rule. Retract your lies:
You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Unfortunately, that's just not a claim Korea can prove; and as the thread shows everybody is in agreement that calling someone a liar is defamatory.
Defaming members +1
while lying that you didnt claim how she wanted to be raped [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
while lying about her that she has a rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
again you assumed that people who were raped cant have rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
to support that she wasnt raped by again lying that she has a rape fetish. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
What woman doesnt want to listen to Gp's endless conspiracy theories, link spam, whining, promoting civil wars, and lying about rape victims? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422977]
Defaming members (GP) +1
============
Instead of adding more:
Not if they derail those who promote civil war and who lie about rape victims. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10387/posts/423265]
Defaming members +1
LRC = 7
Total defamation against members = 7
I used to be triggered too, but eventually, mind evolves past that and you realize that you dont need to be triggered about anything.
Then you joined in mocking family deaths out of cold calculation. Congratulations: you're a sociopath.
Created:
Posted in:
Apparently, the brain doesnt want to respond to "nonsense", but is too damaged to simply walk away or stop posting, so instead it does endless copy paste for no rational reason whatsoever.
The reason is quite rational. Reminding you any an unfortunate soul who comes across this website what an irrational hypocrite you are. Otherwise they might just think there is something like a point in trying to explain your endless misconceptions or point out the many contradictions you advance.
It's important that they know that whatever you may mouth about respect, rules, compassion, you're either too stupid or too immoral to stop yourself from choking out a callback over randomly bringing up a parent's death in an attempt to derail what little rational discourse may have been occurring.
Those who derail deserve to be derailed. Those who behave as hypocrites deserve to have their hypocrisy displayed. Thus this is entirely rational and appropriate given the total lack of moderation in regards to personal attacks:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851][Best.Korea] Yes. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422858][ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862][IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866 ]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Defamatory statements by Sidewalker:
a jury finds him guilty [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422586]
he already lost the portion that found him guilty of rape. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422595]
Created:
Posted in:
Grey parrot seems to be making a lot of sense here. It's good to know they just writhe around spewing non-sense no matter what you post, so why put any effort having original content?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@FLRW
- Unspurprisingly, Greyparrot hates fact-checkers and the facts they supply
Argument by assertion, Poisoning the well.
Don't Walk, Run! Productions: Right Wing Garbage
Poisoning the well.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
None of your silly false equivalences pass the sniff test because they fail to meet the basic criteria. It turns out that the people who wrote these defamation laws already thought of your third grade level retorts.
Blind denial. No relevant argument. disregarded.
Hilary accused Trump of working with russians to steal the election. Somehow she's not liable?No, because defamation generally does not apply to public figures and almost never applies to politicians.
When someone writes a book about a public figure and goes on TV to talk about public figures they become a public figure.
That would first of all cross over into protected (political) speech, second - politicians sign up to be criticized when they decide to run for office
Suddenly absurd implications matter. Weird.
If Trump had just responded by calling her a liar no one would have awarded her a penny
Bullshit
The problem is that he attacked her repeatedly and relentlessly, and did it in the most public way possible.
If one instance wasn't defamation, neither were a hundred. Books are public too.
The right to respond includes proportionality.
Cite law. Cite precedence. You're making things up.
If someone pushes you, you don't have the right the stab them to death.
Even if this was at all analogous, which it isn't, there are plenty of contexts where that is false.
Trump went way beyond all of this. EJC was just a private citizen
Who publicly accused him of rape. End of story. Nothing else is relevant.
You continue to ignore all of this, as if to say the 5'5 women who got knocked unconscious had it coming to her and the linebacker was within his rights.
To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.
When you're the president people will attack you. Deal with it appropriately or get out of public office.
Your opinion of decorum has no legal relevance.
and they followed that process.
They did not. If they found Donald Trump liable for the sun shining they can fill out all the forms they want, the absolute certainty that they broke their oaths to deliberate on the evidence and render a decision regarding the law mean we know there is no legal force.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about how justice in this case works and have shown no interest in learning a thing about it.
Projection.
None of this goes anywhere because it's all nonsense false equivalences
Denying a crime is like a linebacker breaking a woman's jaw. Taking home top secret documents is not like taking home top secret documents if you don't argue when someone asks for them.
Talking to the world, not you, I know you can't bring yourself to admit the obvious.
==================
You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory. The argument to absurdity stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Fulfilling the oath of office OUGHT NOT to be used as carrot to alter the laws. Not in a nation of laws.You guys wanted something done on immigration. Ok, here. Oh, now you're going to complain cause you didn't get it sooner? Please.
What would you say if Trump stopped enforcing all federal gun laws until congress changed federal gun laws? That sound about right?
When Trump neutered the EPA, does that mean the left-tribe congress was just stubborn about not changing environmental regulations?
The only "deal" that should be going on is this: POTUS fulfill your oath and you don't get impeached, but people twisted by propaganda let them get away with a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If only a bipartisan group of senators would be willing to come together and work out legislation to improve conditions at the border which Joe Biden would be willing to sign.
If only citizens would do the barest minimum of research so they wouldn't be manipulated by such propaganda.
Biden wants 'help' violating the law. More resources to illegally admit and parole people who are clearly not eligible for asylum status.
He doesn't need any legislation what so ever to tell the border patrol to follow the damn law and dump anyone who tries to cross right back where they came from. That is 100% legal and 100% viable.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's got to be fun to be some random taliban guy that gets to fly a blackhawk.
I would be like "Hey I know one stick and three rudders. All these switches probably don't matter anyway"
Created:
Posted in:
Defamatory statements by Best.Korea:
Lied about conviction count = LCC = 0
Lied about rape count = LRC = 0
He was found guilty on sexual abuse [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422589]
LCC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped at the time when most people would blame her for being raped? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 1
Demonize the victim because she was raped in circumstances where rape victims didnt have any support, and because she had no way of dealing with it at the time? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422654]
LRC = 2
mock rape victims [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422877]
LRC = 3
Well, saying that rape victim gave hints of wanting to be raped is a horrible way to defend Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422912]
LRC = 4
saying that rape victim wanted to roleplay rape is also a horrible way of defending Trump [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422917]
LRC = 5
You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Unfortunately, that's just not a claim Korea can prove; and as the thread shows everybody is in agreement that calling someone a liar is defamatory.
Defaming members +1
while lying that you didnt claim how she wanted to be raped [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
while lying about her that she has a rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
again you assumed that people who were raped cant have rape fetish [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
to support that she wasnt raped by again lying that she has a rape fetish. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Defaming members +1
Created:
Posted in:
By the way you lied about me lying:
[Best.Korea] You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Maybe you should recant your slander.
Created:
Posted in:
By the way you lied about me lying:
[Best.Korea] You again lied that she said "rape is sexy" [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422921]
Maybe you should recant your slander.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Huh, well there is someone who knows she's a propagandist. Bet she buys a lot of melatonin. Not really on topic of the thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not sure what left tribe projection might be.
They see themselves as elite college graduates. They have a white savior complex. The cost of pity is respect in many cases.
They say they care about blacks and 'latinos', but they have little respect for them.
The Spanish speaking first generation immigrants I know are some of the most competent and virtuous people I have ever met. I have said for a while now that I'd rather the central americans stay and the left-tribe college grads go.
If the playing field was fair, they wouldn't be cleaning toilets for long... but it isn't. They are getting bussed to blue cities based on lies. They won't find meaningful work there, they'll become wards of the state. Bargaining chips for congressional seats and money laundering social programs.
Meanwhile the productive people will continue to be fed upon, and their effort will pay for the free (and absurdly priced) degrees of those overwhelmingly left-tribe university drones I mentioned at the top.
Or who Kelly Osbourne is.
Some blue haired lady who was on a left-tribe talk show and mocked Trump for wanting to stop illegal immigration because there would be nobody left to clean his toilets. Watching her backtrack was satisfying.
Though this moderate Brit see's the fields of Eastern UK awash with Eastern European vegetable pickers.
It could be worse. It could be much worse for the US too. For all the talk, most people coming from central America are decent and should be welcomed. Like I said it's how they're coming as well as the fact that the bad guys making $$$ off smuggling them are really really bad. Like I don't think a brit (or even many Americans) have a good sense for just how evil the gangs can get in central America.
One gang apparently rapes people as a rite of passage. You literally can't be in the gang unless you've raped someone.
The question that needs to be asked is why? There has always been a labor pressure when nations have different production/labor rates, but the way this all started at relatively the same time?
Oh, and the people who have the biggest problem (and I think they know it) are France, Italy, and Spain. Their 'immigrants' like to throw homosexuals off buildings, chop off hands, behead cartoonists, that kind of thing. Not all, but way way too many support it.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that all Americans and Brits are the descendants of migrants.
You don't say? Here I was thinking we had each sprung up from the ground fully formed and there was no migration in human history at all.
It's also worth pointing out that mass migrations tend to precede or follow vicious wars and destabilize empires and civilizations.
On the subject of where are all these migrants going:
Apparently to Chicago, to drive locals in the the right-tribe. Little does this guy know that there will be a huge cache of ballots "discovered" sometime after midnight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Who's going to do all the dirty jobs for low wages then.
That's what Kelly Osbourne wanted to know.
Little bit of left-tribe projection me thinks.
Created: