Thread Derail & Derailment Repository

[King Arts]

I said INVOLVED in the murder. Not the murderer. As a witness. I thought that implication was obvious. I literally have to spell out these things apparently...

I mean I shouldn't be surprised. It's you after all lol.

Thats not true though I don’t get why you act so high and think your smarter than others here when your example can be easily broken.

Here I’ll show you you walk into an alley and see a dead guy you take his wallet. Sure you are a thriving piece of shit but you aren’t involved in the murder and you weren’t a witness to the murder. Now sure later on the prosecution could call you as a witness at the murder trial but you did not witness the murder you were just one who saw a body.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Thats not true though I don’t get why you act so high and think your smarter than others here when your example can be easily broken.

Here I’ll show you you walk into an alley and see a dead guy you take his wallet. Sure you are a thriving piece of shit but you aren’t involved in the murder and you weren’t a witness to the murder. Now sure later on the prosecution could call you as a witness at the murder trial but you did not witness the murder you were just one who saw a body.

Yes they'd call you as a witness because you have firsthand information of the murder. Hence... you are involved in the murder in that you are a witness and have firsthand information pertaining to the investigation and possible trial phase. It certainly doesn't imply that you are a murderer.

So yeah, semantics.

I never implied that possession = distribution. I stated that "involvement in distribution" in regards to the fact they received the illegal goods that were distributed to them. If your not distributing something to anyone, then how are you distributing anything.

As I've stated repeatedly "involved in distribution" is not the same as "distribution" and I've made that clear.

 

[King Arts]

Yes they'd call you as a witness because you have firsthand information of the murder. Hence... you are involved in the murder in that you are a witness and have firsthand information pertaining to the investigation and possible trial phase. It certainly doesn't imply that you are a murderer.

So yeah, semantics.

I never implied that possession = distribution. I stated that "involvement in distribution" in regards to the fact they received the illegal goods that were distributed to them. If your not distributing something to anyone, then how are you distributing anything.

As I've stated repeatedly "involved in distribution" is not the same as "distribution" and I've made that clear.

You are not involved in the murder. Learn what words mean.

The lawyers, and the judge and a expert witness are involved in the trial but are not involved in the MURDER. The murder trial, and the murder itself are separate things, even if there is no trial there would still be a murder. The trial depends on the government the murder itself happens or not depending on morality.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You are not involved in the murder. Learn what words mean.

Your literally involved. If you weren't involved, then you wouldn't be involved in anything regarding the murder.

The lawyers, and the judge and a expert witness are involved in the trial but are not involved in the MURDER. The murder trial, and the murder itself are separate things, even if there is no trial there would still be a murder.

Yeah that's involvement in the murder case. And a murder and murder trial aren't separate things. They are actually connected pretty clearly lol.

 

[King Arts]

Your literally involved. If you weren't involved, then you wouldn't be involved in anything regarding the murder.



Yeah that's involvement in the murder case.

That second word is important. The murder case is different from the murder.

If I say you are involved in a murder that implies you are a criminal involved in a crime where someone was killed wrongly. If I say you are involved in a murder case, THAT IS MUCH BROADER. You could be the killer, a detective, a lawyer, a witness, etc.
Those people I listed except the killer are not involved in the murder.

 

[Vyor]

Your literally involved. If you weren't involved, then you wouldn't be involved in anything regarding the murder.



Yeah that's involvement in the murder case. And a murder and murder trial aren't separate things. They are actually connected pretty clearly lol.

You are not as smart as you think you are.

 

[Husky_Khan]

That second word is important. The murder case is different from the murder.

If I say you are involved in a murder that implies you are a criminal involved in a crime where someone was killed wrongly. If I say you are involved in a murder case, THAT IS MUCH BROADER. You could be the killer, a detective, a lawyer, a witness, etc.
Those people I listed except the killer are not involved in the murder.

No the murder case is actually related to the murder pretty strongly.

Everyone you mentioned is broadly involved in the murder. That's what I meant when I originally said "involved in distribution of X crime" only in this case, it was an actual person receiving the child porn.

So just to review.

No I doubt that. It sounds more like to me he likes more interaction and solicitation with his sexual desires. If she looked like an adult, then there's lots of legal adults he could be pursuing for solicitation of intimate lewdities... and pornography of them as well.

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

I didn't say he should be punished for distribution. I said he was involved in the distribution by being the recipient of it lol.

Just like if he was receiving sex slaves he is involved in sex trafficking.

I'm sorry (not really) that your getting hung up on the semantics.

I've explained what I meant like three times now. This is hilarious (if only to me).

Like I've always stated the involvement is a broad sense of the term. If that's not obvious, oh well. Semantics.

You are not as smart as you think you are.

I never said I was smart. I was willing to have a good faith discussion but since that's not possible, shitposting for my personal entertainment is fine.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Learn what words mean.

So semantics like I stated originally.

I mean yes it does because he's receiving it. That's what my wording was meant to convey. I don't really care about the semantics of it.

Tomato. Tamato.

COPE!

 

[King Arts]

No the murder case is actually related to the murder pretty strongly.

Everyone you mentioned is broadly involved in the murder. That's what I meant when I originally said "involved in distribution of X crime" only in this case, it was an actual person receiving the child porn.

So just to review.

No it's not. Let's pretend that Nazi Germany survived and Nuremburg never happened. There are no war crime trials or crimes against humanity trials. Does that mean that the 6 million people were not murdered?

A murder trial is the government trial to determine guilt in a murder. Murder itself is when one human either unlawfully kills someone OR if they kill someone else and it was immoral to kill that person.

Being involved in that means you either did the killing yourself or directly helped the killers kill the victims.

 

[Husky_Khan]

A murder trial is the government trial to determine guilt in a murder. Murder itself is when one human either unlawfully kills someone OR if they kill someone else and it was immoral to kill that person.

Being involved in that means you either did the killing yourself or directly helped the killers kill the victims.

That's fine whatever, I didn't read whatever dumb Nazi hypothetical you just posted. But when I used the term involved here:

No I doubt that. It sounds more like to me he likes more interaction and solicitation with his sexual desires. If she looked like an adult, then there's lots of legal adults he could be pursuing for solicitation of intimate lewdities... and pornography of them as well.

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

And then clarified it here

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

I didn't say he should be punished for distribution. I said he was involved in the distribution by being the recipient of it lol.

Just like if he was receiving sex slaves he is involved in sex trafficking.

I'm sorry (not really) that your getting hung up on the semantics.

I've explained what I meant like three times now. This is hilarious (if only to me).

I mean yes it does because he's receiving it. That's what my wording was meant to convey. I don't really care about the semantics of it.

Tomato. Tamato.

No I didn't lol. I'll repost for your convenience.

---

Somehow got distilled into this...

I can get the initial wording can be confusing but the leap of logic and strawmanning over semantics is hilarious.

"Did you rob the victims body after the murder? Then you are involved in the murder."

"WHAT? I DIDN'T MURDER ANYONE! That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1""

---

"You provided alcohol to the teenagers who got raped? Then you are involved in the rape."

"I'm not a rapist. That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1"

---

I literally clarified that it was involvement, not equivalence in my first response, hence semantics and then he brings up some iPhone nonsense and goes to town invoking Hitler and Nazis and Retardation for retarded reasons. It's a great example of the high level discussion that takes place here when I made it clear I was stating "involvement" as in being "involved." Not equivocating anything lol.

I thought it was pretty self evident I was using it in a broad sense of the term of involvement. Anything else is semantics. Cheers!

 

[Zachowon]

Layman's terms.
Basically, involved can simply mean you were a witness, to being the person who reported it, to just being a bystander that just happens to be there.

 

[Vyor]

Layman's terms.
Basically, involved can simply mean you were a witness, to being the person who reported it, to just being a bystander that just happens to be there.

That's like saying "I'm involved in the earth's rotation"

 

[Captain X]

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

It's bizarre to me in the same way it's bizarre that a 16 or 17 year-old can end up in prison themselves and on a sex offender registry for life if they take nude selfies of themselves and sent it to their boyfriend or girlfriend. Actually for that matter, this case is a little bizarre if that isn't what happened in this particular case simply because this has become the norm, as strange at is to treat someone like a pedo for taking pictures of their own body.

 

[Husky_Khan]

It's bizarre to me in the same way it's bizarre that a 16 or 17 year-old can end up in prison themselves and on a sex offender registry for life if they take nude selfies of themselves and sent it to their boyfriend or girlfriend. Actually for that matter, this case is a little bizarre if that isn't what happened in this particular case simply because this has become the norm, as strange at is to treat someone like a pedo for taking pictures of their own body.

lol you actually had to quote me from the pruned off thread derail thread and bring the discussion back here. Legend.

 

[Husky_Khan]

That's like saying "I'm involved in the earth's rotation"

Okay then. The patriot in question had no involvement in the case of the distribution of the child porn he allegedly paid for, was arrested for and received unless the metrics are so broad it includes all of the billions of people that have lived, will live and are currently living.

If anything, we all were equally involved in receiving his child porn and thus are all guilty.

 

[Vyor]

Okay then. The patriot in question had no involvement in the case of the distribution of the child porn he allegedly paid for, was arrested for and received unless the metrics are so broad it includes all of the billions of people that have lived, will live and are currently living.

If anything, we all were equally involved in receiving his child porn and thus are all guilty.

Don't fucking put words in my mouth you little pig.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Don't fucking put words in my mouth you little pig.

Wow. Someone involved in the distribution of child pornography is calling me a pig. That's rich.

Don't put words in people's mouths? That's literally how we got here!

EDIT:

Disclaimer that using the Vyor metric I took am involved in the distribution of child pornography. But that's immaterial, I still like to think I have standards when I associate with people.

Plus I'm a retarded dog so I don't think I'm as responsible for my actions as yon bipeds. And it would be the same if I in fact was a pig as alleged.

 

[Vyor]

Wow. Someone involved in the distribution of child pornography is calling me a pig. That's rich.

Don't put words in people's mouths? That's literally how we got here!

EDIT:

Disclaimer that using the Vyor metric I took am involved in the distribution of child pornography. But that's immaterial, I still like to think I have standards when I associate with people.

Plus I'm a retarded dog so I don't think I'm as responsible for my actions as yon bipeds. And it would be the same if I in fact was a pig as alleged.

I didn't give a fucking metric, you cunt.

 

[King Arts]

Maybe y’all should just calm down, both of you.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I didn't give a fucking metric, you cunt.

You literally did.

Maybe y’all should just calm down, both of you.

Pretty sure I am calm. We're just discussing semantics. Not sure what the big deal is.

It's not like we're invoking hypotheticals about the Holocaust or comparisons to Nazis and Hitler and calling people retards and crazy after putting words in their mouth or anything lol.