Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

Status
Not open for further replies.
Onceler said:
SF is right - and it generally pains me to say that. You have become a laughingstock with this. There is a lot of stupidity on the board, and usually I take it w/ a grain of salt, but the stupidity you are displaying here is genuinely offensive.

To use your parlance, you "ran away" from my question, because you had to. People who are genuinely guilty of rape get off all of the time, if their case is even brought to court. Many unconvicted rapists walk the streets. That doesn't mean they aren't rapists.

Ya idjit....
Click to expand...

oh no...i'm a laughing stock...good lord, too funny how you and SF have to use the whole board is against you as a means of proving your point
 
Yurt said:
notice you failed to answer my question about under our laws....i wonder why
Click to expand...

Under our laws, they merely wouldn't be a CONVICTED rapist - as SF said, a FELON.

But, people who actually commit rape are still rapists. I stand by that very controversial statement.

Now...how's about getting around to my question?
 
still can't explain why you think he won't confess...and still can't explain why it would be difficult for her on the stand when she said would go on the stand...:)

as to the rest...whatever SF...we're just going to go in circles...the fact is, under the laws of our country, he is not rapist until convicted, he doesn't even have to register under megan's law or mention it on applications

thanks for running away from the two issues though, that broiught a small chuckle :)
Click to expand...

1) I already explained it...you ignored it.

2) The fact is you are wrong. You are talking about whether he is CONVICTED in a court of law. I am talking about REALITY. A man does not magically turn into a rapist when the jury says guilty. He becomes a rapist when he RAPES A WOMAN.

Bottom line yurt... you are a fucking moron... as I stated long ago.


Or do you really believe that a man can have sex with a woman against her will and only be a rapist if convicted?

Do you yurt? Is THAT truly what you believe?

Or are you just trying to cling to your ignorant explanation because you are embarrassed?
 
Yurt said:
oh no...i'm a laughing stock...good lord, too funny how you and SF have to use the whole board is against you as a means of proving your point
Click to expand...

You said the other day that "no one but Darla on the board takes me seriously" because of something I said.

Is every one of your posts projection?
 
Onceler said:
Under our laws, they merely wouldn't be a CONVICTED rapist - as SF said, a FELON.

But, people who actually commit rape are still rapists. I stand by that very controversial statement.

Now...how's about getting around to my question?
Click to expand...

please show me the law that says they are a rapist, but not convicted

i'll wait

how about you answer my question about the subject matter....
 
Onceler said:
You said the other day that "no one but Darla on the board takes me seriously" because of something I said.

Is every one of your posts projection?
Click to expand...

i wasn't using that to prove a point...i thought even with your limited intelligence you could figure that out

my bad
 
Onceler said:
Rape is a tough crime to prove. Are you actually saying that if a rapist rapes somebody, but gets off in court because of lack of evidence, a technicality, et al., that he is magically no longer a "rapist," because he wasn't convicted?
....
Click to expand...

Yes or no on this one, Yurt (again, to borrow some of your usual parlance).
 
Onceler said:
Yes or no on this one, Yurt (again, to borrow some of your usual parlance).
Click to expand...

i think he would be a rapist, but...under our laws he would not be considered a rapist...this is really getting stupid, we're arguing semantics

what is so difficult about that? i have very little doubt this guy is not a rapist...
 
Yurt said:
you said:

Under our laws, they merely wouldn't be a CONVICTED rapist

please cite the law...and i'll admit i'm wrong on my statement that under our laws he is not a rapist and is presumed innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...

That's the way our legal system works, Yurt. If someone isn't convicted, it just means they aren't convicted.

I answered your question. So, again - are you willing to say right here & right now, that every person who is not convicted of a crime is innocent of that crime? Even those who are never even brought to court?

Yes or no, Yurt. Yes or no.
 
Yurt said:
i think he would be a rapist, but...under our laws he would not be considered a rapist...this is really getting stupid, we're arguing semantics

what is so difficult about that? i have very little doubt this guy is not a rapist...
Click to expand...

Can't give a yes or no on that simple question, eh?

Wonder why.
 
OTE=Superfreak;717148]1) I already explained it...you ignored it.
Click to expand...

LOL...what a liar...you haven't once talked about since i asked you what you base your opinion on...i've asked you about 3 times and you can't tell me...you said i was stupid to base my opinion on the fact he admitted it and that others have confessed after being arrested....ok....what then is YOUR basis?

2) The fact is you are wrong. You are talking about whether he is CONVICTED in a court of law. I am talking about REALITY. A man does not magically turn into a rapist when the jury says guilty. He becomes a rapist when he RAPES A WOMAN.
Click to expand...

so under our laws, he is considered a rapist? what law is that? i have no doubt that in reality this guy is most likely a rapist...and its a fucking pity he was never brought to trial...but you don't want to put the woman thought it despitre the fact she wanted her day in court...

Bottom line yurt... you are a fucking moron... as I stated long ago.


Or do you really believe that a man can have sex with a woman against her will and only be a rapist if convicted?

Do you yurt? Is THAT truly what you believe?

Or are you just trying to cling to your ignorant explanation because you are embarrassed?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


:blah:
 
Yurt said:
i think he would be a rapist, but...under our laws he would not be considered a rapist...this is really getting stupid, we're arguing semantics

what is so difficult about that? i have very little doubt this guy is not a rapist...
Click to expand...

This is your problem dumbass.... there is NO DOUBT... HE ADMITTED IT.
 
What the fuck man?

I have the little puke on IA because there is something wrong with him. Charver was the one person who came out and said it yesterday and he was dead right. The guy ain't all there - he's messed up, for real. The woo woo is strong in this one.

I did take him off IA for one minute two mornings in a row to neg rep him just to fuck with him. That was a big mistake. My daddy always taught me, never fuck with a crazy person because you can never tell which wall it will send them bouncing off of.

My father has been dead too long and every once in a while I forget some of the wise things he taught me.

Won't happen again! SO SHUT UP you little puke.
 
Superfreak said:
This is your problem dumbass.... there is NO DOUBT... HE ADMITTED IT.
Click to expand...

yet you believe he won't admit to the police...something is not right about this case, i've given you my reasons on why i have some doubt...you don't accept them and thats fine

its pointless to keep telling you that people have confessed to crimes they never committed...i'm not saying that is the case here, but it has happened...also...i'm very disturbed that no motion to compel prosecution was brought...YOU and I have no idea what the defense attorney learned after that meeting with the DA....

you can call me stupid all day long, fact is, its your opinion vs. mine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top