Cool, been out there throwing a lot a rocks and lawn chairs? Talking awful big game. Let’s see the action then. Put up or shut up, as they say.

The battle is not for the minds of the people that are pro-pedophilia. It is for the minds of the young people that will otherwise end up being indifferent to the pro-pedophilia people becuase they get convinced that they aren’t actually pro-pedophilia, but just think the victims are partially to blame. “Why did she get in the car? What was she wearing? Maybe she really wanted it.”

You talk about strategy, but think about what you’re doing here: you’re bickering with people you ostensibly agree with, and not with them.

In my very first comment, I called out them for the bullshit term, “underage women”, that they used. I call out “them” all the time on their bullshit. I also call out poor strategy on our side because how else to you improve without feedback and constructive criticism? Two things can be true.

How is choosing your words accurately capitulation?

I wasn’t being pedantic about the technical definitions of words like “pedophile”. I’m saying, outside of this type of assertion, we almost never use “child” to mean “teenager”. And I don’t care for its usage in this particular context, not because it’s technically/ colloquially incorrect in itself, nor that they’re only using that word to load the sentiment with emotional weight. I think it SHOULD have emotional weight, regardless of the victim’s age.

My care is that, in attributing the “wrongness” of the action to the incorrect fact that they are “children” as that word is typically understood, you make an easy target for someone with an opposing view. You undermine the very valid sentiment you are attempting to make with someone who will likely see your choice of words for what it is, an emotionally manipulative exaggeration, and then shift to arguing semantics or simply disregard your point because of that blatant exaggeration.

I do recognize the apparent irony here that I’m the one arguing semantics in this case. But I am on the same side as the person in this post and yourself. I’m not negating the point being made that these were vulnerable girls who are in no way to blame for this. I’m critiquing the technique of making that point by borrowing the emotional weight of words where they don’t belong. Similar to how Isreal throws ‘antisemitism’ around to dodge criticism of their government. That word means something else entirely but it would be convenient to your side of the argument if they let you apply it here. It’s a bad strategy and it makes those words ultimately meaningless and thus powerless when they’re applied to anything convenient.

I’m not advocating for anything to do with relations with minors, just to be clear. I am saying that, at least colloquially, we do tend to distinguish between children and adolescents/teenagers/young adults in our usage of language. Children’s books are not for teens. Children’s clothing stores are not for teens. Children’s medications are not for teens. There are certainly exceptions to this, for example the nearby Children’s hospital serves kids up to 17 years old. But generally speaking, when you say “child” no one is thinking you might be speaking about a 17 year old. We tend to recognize that there is a transition period between childhood and adulthood, not a sharp cutoff point, and our language reflects that.

That being said, none of that changes the absolute grossness of referring to minors who are victims of sex trafficking as “underage women”, obviously. That sort of language is both attributing more maturity and agency to them by calling them “women” and implying that they are somehow in the wrong for being “underage” like they are responsible for doing the things that were done to them as minors. We tend to use the term “underage” to refer to things kids do before it’s legal for them to do it, like “underage drinking”, and so that word has a connotation of wrong doing on the part of the minor, doing a crime rather than them being the victim of the crime. And “women” has the connotation of referring to adults that are responsible for themselves, have the capacity to concent to these sex acts, etc. Neither term should apply to these girls.

They didn’t mention that the figure of the naked woman and the signature were made in thick-ass sharpie. What’s to even doubt about the authenticity now? Confirmed legitimate, case closed.

And to what end? What does his health insurance have that is evidence of the murder? Did he make a stop at the hospital right after or something, and make a claim to Aetna?

Agreed

“5 million in a year”

That year is 2143. And the US dollar has been defunct since 2028 (probably). Enjoy

They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a “license” to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn’t affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It’s a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).

I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that’s a separate issue.

For a successful suit, since he is a public figure, he would have to prove that the letter was demonstrably false and that either they knew it was false or they acted with willful disregard to the truth despite serious substantial doubts about its validity (his trying to threaten them into not publishing it doesn’t qualify). If this letter in question was in an album among many others gathered more than two decade ago, was in Epstein’s possession for all of those years until investogators found it and took it into evidence in 2019, has Trump’s signature on it, etc… well, good luck proving it is fake, let alone that they should have known it was. Cuz it’s clearly real, and they have the receipts.

No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That’s not generally allowed in contact law.

Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process and likely won’t notice it.

And it’s not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non-English speaker? Farsighted? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case?

Also, they’ll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn open when it shipped to you and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren’t the case.

Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.

My understanding was that he was at least inappropriate with a minor, but he was like 17ish? Maybe 16? I don’t remember any of the details or how that panned out though.

Poor Mikey

pure sodium meets saliva

bits of mouth, now spread across the room, catch fire

Unaddressed man-made climate change leading to unprecedented volatility and extremes in weather as predicted since the 70s? “Bullshit.”

A secret cabal of leftists attacking red states (and blue states for… reasons) through advanced undetectable technology (or magic?) that alters the weather creating these extreme events? “Seems reasonable to me.”

The attack was real, the injury itself was overblown for the spectacle and “heroism” of it. It was a very minor injury that bled a lot because there are a lot of veins on the head and ears.

Also whether or not he was actually grazed by the bullet or by shrapnel from a bullet hitting the teleprompter is questionable. It really doesn’t even matter either way as he was injured while being shot at, so what difference does it make what exactly hit him? But he got big mad at someone suggesting that they weren’t sure, that he somehow knew it was a bullet, like he knew better, like he saw the bullet or something, which is moronic. So I like to bring that up.

At least when Harvey defers all of his decisions to a President (the one on his coin), he’s transparent about it. And half of the time he actually DOESN’T make the evil decision, so that is an improvement too.

Alright, for arguments sake, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt here. Let’s assume that there was no one that entered or exited his room that night, that he killed himself alone in the room, that they released the tape in a good faith effort to show the truth to the world, and that, due to corruption or whatever unavoidable issue, those minutes were lost through no nefarious means and those missing minutes would have been as clean as the rest of the tape… They’re still morons for releasing it! How the fuck did they think that missing time would be interpreted!? They stoke conspiracy on the daily like it is their job with WAY less blatantly suspicious circumstances than this. Even if they weren’t a bunch of evil fascists that are definitely trying to hide something, but just otherwise normal morons, they deserve the fallout of this for being that stupid.

You forgot to add Hillary Clinton, and it’s Barack HUSSEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNN Obama