WWTBAM Bored

By the way, one thing that always strikes me about our engagements is, I do make inflammatory accusations against some of you, but it’s based on what you’re saying, and how I’m interpreting it.

On the other hand, your comments towards me are almost always more personal. Whether not it’s wishing my child was dead, or that I must be bad at my job, or that apparently I’m an alcoholic. There’s never a comment about why my argument is wrong. Just long-winded paragraphs from flock and yipping from tlynn.

Looking at these conversations from 10,000 feet, that tells me who’s actually right about all this stuff and who’s wrong.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 10:56 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 10:35 am

what they don't understand is there are a lot of people that share my opinions that are a lot more informed than I am.

Here are some of them:

That's exactly what I am talking about. You think this is a realistic picture of the country? You think that I have even one thing in common with this? You think the people who disagree with you on political issues have anything in common with these people? This photo is pure propaganda, trollboy. The same way the Nazis got people to hate jews. Just the fact that you post it here is proof that you have fallen for it completely. Sad.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:23 am

By the way, one thing that always strikes me about our engagements is, I do make inflammatory accusations against some of you, but it’s based on what you’re saying, and how I’m interpreting it.

On the other hand, your comments towards me are almost always more personal. Whether not it’s wishing my child was dead, or that I must be bad at my job, or that apparently I’m an alcoholic. There’s never a comment about why my argument is wrong. Just long-winded paragraphs from flock and yipping from tlynn.

Looking at these conversations from 10,000 feet, that tells me who’s actually right about all this stuff and who’s wrong.

You forgot 'astonishingly lacking self-awareness"

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:05 pm

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:23 am

By the way, one thing that always strikes me about our engagements is, I do make inflammatory accusations against some of you, but it’s based on what you’re saying, and how I’m interpreting it.

On the other hand, your comments towards me are almost always more personal. Whether not it’s wishing my child was dead, or that I must be bad at my job, or that apparently I’m an alcoholic. There’s never a comment about why my argument is wrong. Just long-winded paragraphs from flock and yipping from tlynn.

Looking at these conversations from 10,000 feet, that tells me who’s actually right about all this stuff and who’s wrong.

You forgot 'astonishingly lacking self-awareness"

As always, your words are as empty as your soul

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:08 am

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:46 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:27 am

And you make diagnoses with that sharp mind? Do you amputate for a hangnail?

Yeah, what I was alluding to Flock.I'm not sure if "deserve" and "responsible for" are terms the doctor fully understands. He pulls a quote by me explaining how I feel Floyd is fully responsible for his own death. That is different from saying he deserved to die, which I've never said or implied.

That would be like, oh, someone saying that someone deserves to die should they die of a complication from a voluntarily taken vaccine.

Bottom line, personal responsibilty is not a concept he understands, nor believes in.

What’s the purpose of even mentioning that you think Floyd is “fully responsible” for his own death?

Aside from the fact that whether or not that’s different from “deserve” is not really clear, a jury disagreed, and found nothing mitigating about the situation.

And it was your main comment about the situation. Not that the situation was a tragedy, or that, indeed, the police officer did deserve to go to prison for it. Your only thought was that Floyd somehow had it coming because he was a criminal.

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

It was just a strange, telling thing of you to blurt out.

You clowns pound me all the time, suggesting that I’m too smart for my own good, or apparently implying I’m an alcoholic, but at least I can still be sufficiently horrified the murder of someone in broad daylight. The whole lot of you go around thinking that cruel things should happen to other people. How disgusting!

You just doubled down on your inablility to understand, or willingness to understand, common English.

What’s the purpose of even mentioning that you think Floyd is “fully responsible” for his own death?

The point would be if Floyd is fully responsible, then someone else can't be.

Aside from the fact that whether or not that’s different from “deserve” is not really clear,

It's very clear, to someone with intelligence.

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

Not fully responsible. No.

The whole lot of you go around thinking that cruel things should happen to other people.

I don't think I've ever said anything about something SHOULD happen. Go look. I know you will. But don't come back with something that says something different and call it that.

I do make inflammatory accusations against some of you, but it’s based on what you’re saying, and how I’m interpreting it.

On the other hand, your comments towards me are almost always more personal.

What's more personal than besmirching someone's character? Certainly not questioning their credentials to do their job. But then again, maybe your skills are more important to you than your character.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:22 pm

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:08 am

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:46 am

Yeah, what I was alluding to Flock.I'm not sure if "deserve" and "responsible for" are terms the doctor fully understands. He pulls a quote by me explaining how I feel Floyd is fully responsible for his own death. That is different from saying he deserved to die, which I've never said or implied.

That would be like, oh, someone saying that someone deserves to die should they die of a complication from a voluntarily taken vaccine.

Bottom line, personal responsibilty is not a concept he understands, nor believes in.

What’s the purpose of even mentioning that you think Floyd is “fully responsible” for his own death?

Aside from the fact that whether or not that’s different from “deserve” is not really clear, a jury disagreed, and found nothing mitigating about the situation.

And it was your main comment about the situation. Not that the situation was a tragedy, or that, indeed, the police officer did deserve to go to prison for it. Your only thought was that Floyd somehow had it coming because he was a criminal.

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

It was just a strange, telling thing of you to blurt out.

You clowns pound me all the time, suggesting that I’m too smart for my own good, or apparently implying I’m an alcoholic, but at least I can still be sufficiently horrified the murder of someone in broad daylight. The whole lot of you go around thinking that cruel things should happen to other people. How disgusting!

You just doubled down on your inablility to understand, or willingness to understand, common English.

What’s the purpose of even mentioning that you think Floyd is “fully responsible” for his own death?

The point would be if Floyd is fully responsible, then someone else can't be.

Aside from the fact that whether or not that’s different from “deserve” is not really clear,

It's very clear, to someone with intelligence.

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

Not fully responsible. No.

The whole lot of you go around thinking that cruel things should happen to other people.

I don't think I've ever said anything about something SHOULD happen. Go look. I know you will. But don't come back with something that says something different and call it that.

I do make inflammatory accusations against some of you, but it’s based on what you’re saying, and how I’m interpreting it.

On the other hand, your comments towards me are almost always more personal.

What's more personal than besmirching someone's character? Certainly not questioning their credentials to do their job. But then again, maybe your skills are more important to you than your character.

Again, a jury disagreed with you. Perhaps they noted that there are all sorts of arrests that happen every day, including ones where the criminal is resisting arrest, that don’t involve someone being choked to death. By your logic, hundreds of criminals should be murdered on the street every day. I realize that otherwise that reflects your cruel worldview, but surely you don’t mean that.

Also, based on your thoughts of responsibility versus desert, I realize you’re not great at making subtle distinctions, but let me distinguish this for you and hope you understand: When I say you’re terrible person because you’re excusing the death of someone at the hands of the police, when nothing involved demanded that he be murdered, I think that’s fair, because it’s based on your own comments. OTOH When someone says I must be a terrible physician because I don’t think that Black people should be extrajudicially murdered, it’s a terrible comment, but it’s also an irrelevant comment. I don’t comment on your job or personal life because that has nothing to do with what you’re actually saying here. And the upshot is, it’s typical for your lack of coherence to think that your comments about me personally have to do with anything we are talking about. I’ll fully admit that many of my comments are petty and personal, but I also think they’re directly targeted at what you espouse.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:22 pm

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

Not fully responsible. No.

Are you suggesting that attire may make a rape victim partially responsible for the rape? Because that's the natural implication of the words you're using here. And those words certainly make me feel more justified in worrying about an American Taliban.

Also, I don't understand how to interpret your statement that George Floyd was "fully responsible" for his own death, which YOU SAY means no one else was responsible, to mean anything other than that he deserved summary execution. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:46 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:22 pm

I bet you think rape victims have it coming also because of their skirt lengths.

Not fully responsible. No.

Are you suggesting that attire may make a rape victim partially responsible for the rape? Because that's the natural implication of the words you're using here. And those words certainly make me feel more justified in worrying about an American Taliban.

Also, I don't understand how to interpret your statement that George Floyd was "fully responsible" for his own death, which YOU SAY means no one else was responsible, to mean anything other than that he deserved summary execution. --Bob

Are you pretending to be dense to continue the debate or is it genuine?

Based on your wording it would appear you think anyone who dies in a car accident when they are 100% at fault deserves to die? Is that really how you think? I hope not. However, I would not hold the car manufacturer or county that owns the road responsible, even though without their contributions there would have been no accident.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:57 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:46 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:22 pm

Not fully responsible. No.

Are you suggesting that attire may make a rape victim partially responsible for the rape? Because that's the natural implication of the words you're using here. And those words certainly make me feel more justified in worrying about an American Taliban.

Also, I don't understand how to interpret your statement that George Floyd was "fully responsible" for his own death, which YOU SAY means no one else was responsible, to mean anything other than that he deserved summary execution. --Bob

Are you pretending to be dense to continue the debate or is it genuine?

Based on your wording it would appear you think anyone who dies in a car accident when they are 100% at fault deserves to die? Is that really how you think? I hope not. However, I would not hold the car manufacturer or county that owns the road responsible, even though without their contributions there would have been no accident.

Why are you ignoring my first question? Do you believe someone's attire makes the victim partially responsible for being raped?

As for the other, when you say fully responsible, that means you think no other actors did anything wrong. So according to you, there's nothing wrong with Derek Chauvin's conduct when he murdered George Floyd. That view seems pretty reprehensible to me. --Bob

Perhaps BiT is just an exceptionally bad communicator, but I am interpreting his comments to say that Chauvin was NOT GUILTY because Floyd, being a criminal, is fully responsible for anything that results from his criminality.

(By the way, Floyd is alleged to have used a fake $20 bill).

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:04 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:57 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:46 pm

Are you suggesting that attire may make a rape victim partially responsible for the rape? Because that's the natural implication of the words you're using here. And those words certainly make me feel more justified in worrying about an American Taliban.

Also, I don't understand how to interpret your statement that George Floyd was "fully responsible" for his own death, which YOU SAY means no one else was responsible, to mean anything other than that he deserved summary execution. --Bob

Are you pretending to be dense to continue the debate or is it genuine?

Based on your wording it would appear you think anyone who dies in a car accident when they are 100% at fault deserves to die? Is that really how you think? I hope not. However, I would not hold the car manufacturer or county that owns the road responsible, even though without their contributions there would have been no accident.

Why are you ignoring my first question? Do you believe someone's attire makes the victim partially responsible for being raped?

As for the other, when you say fully responsible, that means you think no other actors did anything wrong. So according to you, there's nothing wrong with Derek Chauvin's conduct when he murdered George Floyd. That view seems pretty reprehensible to me. --Bob

Here's a hypothetical. A hooker on the street is raped. Her demeanor may be a contributing factor to it, but not proximate cause. Rape is a crime regardless, and rapist's psychopathy is proximate cause. Was psychopathy involved in Floyd's death? Etc,, and I agree with Chauvin verdict.

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 3:15 pm

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:04 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:57 pm

Are you pretending to be dense to continue the debate or is it genuine?

Based on your wording it would appear you think anyone who dies in a car accident when they are 100% at fault deserves to die? Is that really how you think? I hope not. However, I would not hold the car manufacturer or county that owns the road responsible, even though without their contributions there would have been no accident.

Why are you ignoring my first question? Do you believe someone's attire makes the victim partially responsible for being raped?

As for the other, when you say fully responsible, that means you think no other actors did anything wrong. So according to you, there's nothing wrong with Derek Chauvin's conduct when he murdered George Floyd. That view seems pretty reprehensible to me. --Bob

Here's a hypothetical. A hooker on the street is raped. Her demeanor may be a contributing factor to it, but not proximate cause. Rape is a crime regardless, and rapist's psychopathy is proximate cause. Was psychopathy involved in Floyd's death? Etc,, and I agree with Chauvin verdict.

Nope. Calling her demeanor a "contributing factor" suggests that there was something wrongful about her demeanor. Otherwise, you'd have to say that her very presence in that location (assuming the victim is a woman), or her mere gender, were "contributing factors."

In this situation, 100% of the responsibility belongs to the perpetrator. Other than in the exceptionally rare circumstance where there's actually a reasonable and good faith misunderstanding whether the victim was consenting to sex, the victim's demeanor, attire, presence, gender all have nothing to do with anything. And just to be as clear as possible, nothing about a victim's attire renders any possible "misunderstanding" about consent either reasonable or in good faith. --Bob

Contributing factor to a result? Like drug induced trauma, Ala Floyd, ? Not cause or saying blame you see. Hooker attracts shady characters. This is actually interesting.

I guess I'm posing defense support inadvertently. I did love jury duty.

Hmmm…. Just noodling here but, so a 20 something gorgeous brunette wearing a skirt so short you can see her underwear if she were wearing any, but she’s not, rubs her breasts up against a a 20 something hormonal boy telling him she wants to give him something he’ll never forget and takes him back to her dorm room, they kiss, grind, and then as he starts to make his move she says “no”, but he doesn’t stop. So he goes beyond, not her rhetoric but maybe her intentions. She is 0% responsible. The boy 100% responsible. He should go to jail and be on a list for life.

But should that same boy listen to a speech, get worked up beyond the intention of the speaker and walk through doors opened by security and wave a flag. Not only does he go to jail but so should the speaker.

Don't get the kid and speaker thing, but yes if the girl says no, it means no. How do you know if the guy threatened her or suggested weird shit?
Net net is NO is always an option.
NO applies to listening as well. Be responsible

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:29 pm

Don't get the kid and speaker thing, but yes if the girl says no, it means no. How do you know if the guy threatened her or suggested weird shit?
Net net is NO is always an option.
NO applies to listening as well. Be responsible

Agreed, but there's a very real element if some who "say no" the morning after.

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:38 pm

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:29 pm

Don't get the kid and speaker thing, but yes if the girl says no, it means no. How do you know if the guy threatened her or suggested weird shit?
Net net is NO is always an option.
NO applies to listening as well. Be responsible

Agreed, but there's a very real element if some who "say no" the morning after.

Or 20 years later

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:28 pm

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:38 pm

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:29 pm

Don't get the kid and speaker thing, but yes if the girl says no, it means no. How do you know if the guy threatened her or suggested weird shit?
Net net is NO is always an option.
NO applies to listening as well. Be responsible

Agreed, but there's a very real element if some who "say no" the morning after.

Or 20 years later

There's that..

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:29 pm

Don't get the kid and speaker thing

1/6

Oh don’t mind me. I’m just watching you guys victim blame and slut shame.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:27 am

Oh don’t mind me. I’m just watching you guys victim blame and slut shame.

Who called anyone a slut? Oh, you did. Figures.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:27 am

Oh don’t mind me. I’m just watching you guys victim blame and slut shame.

Who called anyone a slut?
Oh, you did. Figures.

Hunter Biden's statement to the Republican committees before which he testified this week:

For more than a year, your Committees have hunted me in your partisan political pursuit of my dad. You have trafficked in innuendo, distortion, and sensationalism—all the while ignoring the clear and convincing evidence staring you in the face. You do not have evidence to support the baseless and MAGA-motivated conspiracies about my father because there isn’t any.

You have built your entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis. Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud. Rather than follow the facts as they have been laid out before you in bank records, financial statements, correspondence, and other witness testimony, you continue your frantic search to prove the lies you, and those you rely on, keep peddling. Yes, they are lies.

He's already admitted he had zero qualifications to be on the Burisma board. There's that. Poor guy. But he does have one major defense. He is a major pawn and he will be protected by the left at all costs. Just like the 51 traitors did.