Went to Huff Post. They said nothing about a black male decapitating a woman and it being totes cool. Have you considered you are misinformed because you've never actually met a black man before? Just tossing that out there.
EDIT- No clue what "SRS" is. First Google result was the Scoliosis Research Society. I'm pretty sure Scoliosis isn't exclusive to liberals though.
But none of this mentions sex. How would I know she was a virgin anyway? There's no mention of the word sex. No mention of the word rape. Nobody to accuse me. No damaged parties. You just want to see non-liberals destroyed. All you want to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
Literal meaning rule motherfucker. Meaning that since in the original conversation Horse posted you made zero clarification that consent referred to anything but sex and you also made mention of women being in 'extreme discomfort' and a reference to virginity, in a court of law, this conversation would be interpreted and understood as a conversation about forced sexual intercourse without consent. What you're trying to do is a common tactic, falsely claiming that since specific clarification wasn't given to the subject that it is therefore rendered mute. However, in the eyes of the law, the implications of the language used combined with the context of the conversation and further compounded by a lack of clarification for anything OTHER than the literal interpretation means that you are up shit creek without a paddle and should probably stop trying to paddle with your hands. It ain't getting you anywhere and you're just ending up looking like a dumb shit.
Actually I asked if you have proof of your white nonsense. Aforementioned white nonsense being that a black man could decapitate a woman and it'd be kosher to liberals. Your reply was to look at liberal websites, which I did, and they didn't say that.
Again I ask can you point to a specific site that says this? Last I checked decapitation, no matter what race, is frowned upon. See every ISIS article about decapitations.
EDIT- So who else thinks @Holden is just afraid of minorities? Having only dealt with white people I'm sure something like Guatemalans is foreign and scary to the guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
Literal meaning rule motherfucker. Meaning that since in the original conversation Horse posted you made zero clarification that consent referred to anything but sex
So... he admits to "pushing past consent" with any "semi-attractive" woman who walked by... and... so, he's implying that he either A) tried to have sex with her (which didn't happen) or B) asked if she was a virgin (probably didn't happen, but god knows what his chat-up line would be).
I never really thought someone could be so goddamned stupid.
Try clicking links and reading the full post before responding, both clearly explained that the interpretation of the language used combined with the context of the conversation and a lack of clarification against the literal interpretation leads to the implication of sex being the subject. You're a fan of pointing out fallacies, this is a big one. You can't backpedal and say the conversation wasn't about rape because "I didn't say rape tho!"
Also the second point....means fucking nothing. I'm not saying a lawyer would pop out of a bush while you're raping a girl to say "QUICKLY, SAY YOU'RE ACTUALLY PLAYING TENNIS!" I'm saying that your argument is unsound and you were talking about rape, whether you wanna admit it or not.
Try clicking links and reading the full post before responding, both clearly explained that the interpretation of the language used combined with the context of the conversation and a lack of clarification against the literal interpretation leads to the implication of sex being the subject.
So I'm off ignore again. Is it because I'm the super mastermind behind all this?
Answer one question for me: how did you know she was a virgin? To clarify... how did you come to know, that very night, that she was a virgin? Did you ask her?
Edit: Ah, you're saying you made it up to scare Horse. A woman thousands of miles away from you that you've never met, will never meet, and had the grace to tell her that you wouldn't rape her. For the record, I don't believe that, but even if it is true, that is possibly the single dumbest thing to fabricate.
I'm back on ignore again, aren't I? That's what typically happens.
Besides horse wasn't that trustworthy even before this crap she pulled. I saw some of her posts on closed forums or which posts she liked (like by various lunatics). Why would I trust her at all?
Besides horse wasn't that trustworthy even before this crap she pulled. I saw some of her posts on closed forums or which posts she liked (like by various lunatics). Why would I trust her at all?
Of which there are none (closed forums). Also, please think about this... were there to be "closed forums" dedicated to getting you tossed into jail, why would we allow you to see them?
Because you've been begging her for an interview for a very long time. You've also begged her to edit your wiki article to "the truth." When she wasn't available to do it as quickly as you wanted, you moved on to another female Kiwi you thought would be able to do it on your schedule.
Besides horse wasn't that trustworthy even before this crap she pulled. I saw some of her posts on closed forums or which posts she liked (like by various lunatics). Why would I trust her at all?
1. You entrusted a complete stranger to edit your wiki page for the the truth. You thought you could trust her to do that, so you "tested" her to see if she was worthy of your friendship.
Well, "a complete stranger". Yeah, but also the person who was usually reasonably civil and intelligent.
Also, and not really connected to this, I never ordered her nor told her to c/p my corrections. I said I'll send them for reviews and that she should check content (I didn't care about grammar at all). Little did I know that she has no idea about my views or life anyway.
Also, her whining about me not asking her to write? And did you ever ask me to do that, Horse? Ever? No?
Also, what would you write if you did? You know extremely little.
So, go ahead. Have a wiki written by a lunatic, a wiki that somebody who reads it from a completely neutral perspective of not knowing anything would see makes no logical sense in many of its claims (since it's written by a crazy person). Anybody who knows anything about my life would see it's a massive crock of shit that doesn't even make a difference between key people in my life and states crazy things.
This never happened. I said you whined that she wasn't able to make the corrections as quickly as you wanted. Hence why you flew to another person you thought could edit them faster.
Anybody who knows anything about my life would see it's a massive crock of shit that doesn't even make a difference between key people in my life and states crazy things.
Which is exactly why you threw a shit-fit when the article was first written and why you've been asking people to edit it so it wasn't a "crock of shit." @Holden, you even asked me to edit it at one point.
So, go ahead. Have a wiki written by a lunatic, a wiki that somebody who reads it from a completely neutral perspective of not knowing anything would see makes no logical sense in many of its claims (since it's written by a crazy person).
