Lurker > paulisdabomb

Why was the contact offensive, because she said so? So, okay, what if she's had some very traumatic experiences with shoulder grabbing, or other kinds of grabbing? In the justice system that I know, the alleged perp would then only be guilty if he knew about that trauma and grabbed her regardless. However, it seems incredibly unlikely he would've known about her fear of being grabbed.

If it's not that, she would then have to prove damage "to a reasonable sense of personal dignity". What arguments will she use? She's on TV? She works in a public space with a big fucking camera, something to which people have been drawn since the first camera was invented. And she's a reporter, so it's reasonable to expect her to know about this 'fuck her in the pussy'-bit; people have been doing it for years. Or maybe her friends/coworkers saw her get scared on live TV and now she's embarrassed to face them? Is the shoulder sacred in her culture? Come on now. Stop being so litigious. What's next, American moms sueing their newborn babies for the battery of their uteri?

Fuck that, man. And if this is what America is like, fuck America.

Mad_Max posted...

Admittedly, I don't understand that you have no right grabbing someone without their consent

Understood

You can't face my opinion so you change my words in an attempt to mock me, and then you agree with yourself? :') Where did you learn such evolved, tolerant behaviour?

BlackScythe0 posted...

You don't have the right to grab people.

Not having an explicit right to something does not equal it being illegal. If no harm was done, why do you feel that it's justified to do harm in return? If you support a justice system that does that, and judges based on perceived rights and hurt feelings instead of facts, you're a fascist. Which is fine by me, but just be honest about it.

Mad_Max posted...

Shows how little you know.

Haha, yeah. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the psychopathic nuances of American justice :')

He didn't actually fuck her in the pussy on live TV, right? His dick wasn't out, he didn't grab her tits, he didn't dry hump her leg or slap her ass. Right? If all those things didn't happen, all that did happen was basically him grabbing her shoulder and yelling fuck and pussy into a nearby camera.

As far as I know, grabbing someone by the shoulder, giving someone a fright, and/or yelling words that the American TV-watching public has become overly sensitive about aren't crimes. She's got a lowly public profession for fuck's sake, lighten the fuck up. She and some of you posters are way too litigious.

Maybe give him a fine for breaking the social distancing rules. Other than that, it's just 'move along, nothing to see here'.

Tragic on an individual level, but evolutionary hilarious. It's all very sad for him and his family.... But come on now, he had insanely cheap healthcare and he's still stupid enough to take this kind of unnecessary risk that already left his family indebted to a hospital, all for an extra $35 a month, or whatever his reason might have been. He doesn't deserve help or sympathy, nor is his suffering of any importance

Tight

SirPikachu posted...

I promise you that the killer did not own that gun legally, and probably wasn't even allowed to have guns at all

All banning guns will do in America is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. People like this dude will still 100% have just as easy access to guns.

That only makes the situation more dire, and America's inaction more tragic. You must realise that being able to easily get an illegal gun is a symptom of a (very) broken system, not some inevitable law of nature. And if what Mead says is true, that there are more guns than people in America, it's even worse than I thought. While the availability of huge amounts of illegal guns is easy to blame on criminals or 'bad people' or whatever, that situation was co-created by the government, gun manufacturers and yes, even by the influence of law abiding citizens.

You seem to have fallen into a trap, believing that more guns and bullets are necessary in order to protect yourself against all of the guns and bullets.

SunWuKung420 posted...

You don't fix the brain by chopping off a foot.

You should brush up on biology, guns are not feet.

SunWuKung420 posted...

It wouldn't solve anything as long as people are choosing violence. We all know violence is bad and yet so many still turn to it. Our countries run on it.

And you know that it wouldn't solve anything because...? Has it been attempted? I don't think so. No offence, but your argument doesn't make sense to me, it's not even really an argument tbh. If violent people have fewer means to be violent, then even if the behaviour or urge is still present, it won't be able to manifest itself as much, often or severe. Excuse my graphic example, but beating someone to death (in world were guns are outlawed) or simply pulling a trigger, are two very different things. This means violence would naturally drop if guns aren't an option.

All I really see is unwillingness to change, or even to try. It's sad :(

SunWuKung420 posted...

No. It's that we've created a culture where violence is a solution. The tool of choice us not the issue, whether it's hurtful words or guns, the intend to harm is the same.

Okay so, you believe that violent behaviour can be conditioned out of a people? Would you say, historically, that humans voluntarily resort to peaceful means to resolve conflicts?

My point is, sure, behaviour is worse than guns, but outlawing guns would solve this problem in a heartbeat, whereas trying to re-educate a people is kind of a challenge

Umm... public public service announcement announcement service?

Ayayay :'(

Is essence, this boils down to the fact that guns are legal in your country.

This is a fact: as long as guns are legal, insane raging lunatic idiots will also be able to get their hands on them easily. If it were possible to filter them out, that would've happened already. Problem is that lunatics can hide their lunacy when they need to. For example, when purchasing a gun. Outlawing guns would obviously mean that responsible owners give up theirs too, in order to prevent the absolute dumbest shits from shooting innocent people (which happens a whole fucking lot, there's no denying that). If that's not what your country wants, then you're basically saying "it's okay for things like this to keep happening once in a while, just don't touch mah gunz".

Combine that with shit (mental) healthcare, ridiculous soap-opera politics, the worship of money, a working culture that burns people out and widespread inequality, or the perception thereof (racism/sexism/genderism/etc), you've got some pretty decent ingredients for a disaster of a country :')

Also, hey, don't get all worked up, because (Western) Europe is just as stupid and fucked (except for guns and healthcare).

No offence but what a lame ass song this is, sheesh. Never heard it before either; I must've made the right choices in life to evade this track until now.

Parks and Recreation is way too American for me, I can't stand it

Dragon Quest 5, hands down. Whoever wrote this poll knows fuck all about video games :')

Revelation34 posted...

Is that what I think it means?

Entertainment to me mostly means movies and games. But yes, 'herbs' means what you think it means. :p

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Kinda had to do a double take there. (Dacht dat je het over Engeland ofzo had...)

Nee, jammer genoeg niet...

Yeah it's strange, it sort of feels like wartime. Also, when I saw the queues at the coffeeshops, with tens of people packed super closely together, I laughed, shook my head and, of course, took a picture.

When I got home, two ambulances were parked in the middle of the street. A bunch of people, equipped in some sort of hazmat gear, stepped out and entered the building. I entered after them. It was a pretty surreal sight.

Apparently, a couple living two floors above me, two women in their late twenties, were positively diagnosed with covid-19 and in real bad shape. We applauded the ambulance staff as they carried the couple downstairs. Then they rushed off to the hospital.

Just yesterday, the prime minister directly addressed the nation for the first time since the 1973 oil crisis, telling us pretty much to flatten the curve and that we'll all be getting the virus in the coming period in order to build group immunity. He then stressed that most people will suffer only mild symptoms, which, while statistically true, obviously doesn't have anything to do with his particular plan. However, seeing two people younger than myself on the verge of collapse in the building where I live... isn't very reassuring. For reference, I live in the worst-hit city (so far) in the Netherlands.

None of the other residents were tested or advised on what to do, by the way, even though about half of the people living here is over 70 and scared. At least I have a comfortable stash of food, herbs and entertainment.

Honestly, it only grosses me out if the other person is nasty, dirty, smelly or disgusting in some other way.

Yeah, the museum where I work is closed because of the virus. There's a lot going on.

Museums, libraries, other public buildings and some shops are closed, all gatherings of 100+ humans are prohibited, many people are working from home, employers are shitting themselves and the government wants anyone who has even the slightest cold to stay at home. Even some hospitals have been closed because they had too many infected staff members... That's probably not all of it, too.

There's also a run on toilet paper, which is very annoying. Surprisingly, the schools are still open.

It's all going great here in the Netherlands! :')

Zareth posted...

waaaaaaaaaaaaay more companies should be on the list then, ok?

Yeah I totally agree, way more should. I'm fairly certain some of the companies in the extractive industry don't exactly play nice.

And if unfairly treated labourers are included on the list, then so should child labour, by any definition. Ferrero, for example, who owns Nutella and, ironically, Kinder chocolate, has been reprimanded for using child labour on their cocoa plantations. Just putting it out there :p

Buuut I suppose that although it's an incomplete and silly list, it's still better than no list at all.

Noop_Noop posted...

Cats

Cats again

You seem to not understand. Cats, like other mammals, cannot digest nor do not require milk as adults. The milk can ferment in their stomachs since they lack the necessary enzymes, causing sickness. I'm just gonna assume everything else you wrote is equally asinine and move on.

Edit: I accidentally did read on, slightly, and saw the word wetnurse. You're correct, in that a wetnurse can produce milk for another animal, even another species of mammal. I forgot to mention that. But, this still only applies to infants.

Mead posted...

it tastes really good

Are you sure that's not your mammalian baby, milk craving taste palate talking?

sveksii posted...

Yet here you are using a computer. Hypocrite.

There's a difference between tools and nutrients. Not sure if you've ever been explained this?

Today's cereal poll reminded me of how normal people think it is to drink a female cow's milk, or rather, a female cow's secreted breast juice. I renounced it at age four, because I realised I'm not cattle.

The facts:

- No other mammal drinks the milk of another mammal
- No other mammal drinks milk during adulthood
- Adult mammals cannot normally digest milk, nor do they require it
- All mammals only produce milk during their offspring's infancy
- A milk giving mammal needs to be continually impregnated in order to secrete enough milk to satisfy human demand
- Cow milk is actually not that similar to human milk
- A vast majority of humans is lactose intolerant
- Milk is for baby cows
- Humans are not cows
- You are a human

Do with these facts what you will, but please also remember that the only white, protein rich liquid that is secreted by a mammal that you ever should drink is your mom's.