tailgater
7 years ago
I love when you prove my point.

Speyside
7 years ago
You have no point. But your mind is made up, I won't confuse it with facts. I do find it interesting that your drivel is insufficient enough that you need to augment it with ineffective childish taunts.
frankj1
7 years ago

Not off point, based on your post.
You asked "is there a political side not opposed to sexual harassment/assault?"

This suggests that the student protest is justified, because Weinstein committed sexual harassment and assault.

My counter point is concise and accurate. The same professor/dean was on the defense team for a murderer.
Yet no protest.


My take, based on everything above: the protest is political.

#MeToo is rekindled in the hallowed halls of Cambridge.

Which is fine. Sexual harassment is a terrible thing.
But they're trying to obscure the real impetus. Just like victor is doing.
I make no apologies for seeing the politics of their angst.

tailgater wrote:


I don't know enough to state whether the protest is justified or not, so I did not state that.

Unless I missed a lot by not really delving into this thing, what I actually am stating is that if both political views agree on the validity of being against sexual assault/harassment, then how does this become a political statement about one side...if the protesters are uncomfortable confiding in the defense attorney for one accused of this exact crime?

I'm not seeing that the protesters are saying Weinstein does not deserve his rights to a vigorous defense, just that they may feel his attorney/Resident Adviser is not the best choice for a victim of said crime right now...the Hernandez crime(s) likely would not conjure up the same feelings in a victim of sexual improprieties.
victor809
7 years ago

He murdered a non player.

tailgater wrote:


Well... A player for a semipro team. I don't know the team names well enough that I assumed that was a professional team when I skimmed it . I'll give you this one though, mainly because you chose literally the least significant word in my argument to correct. It changes nothing. In fact, if you read my argument and decided that "player" was in any way an important part of it, then I'm sorry, but you get a 0 in reading comprehension. 0 out of 1.

As for the rest, you're not being consistent.

First, you chastise me and claim you have proof that the students are aghast because the "dean" won't have time to be house mother.

SAT student tail wrote:


That is not stated or implied in any way in any of my sentences. 0 out of 2.


Now you seem to be saying that they're just upset because it's a well known fact lawyers who defend a sex maniac can't be trusted if you get sexually molested yourself.

someone who's gonna maybe get into state school wrote:


Trust was not mentioned anywhere nor implied anywhere in any of my arguments or sentences above. 0 out of 3


Remind me not to ask the local criminal defense attorney to babysit.
Your wisdom is appreciated, Vic.

someone who isn't even making it to community college wrote:


If "defense attorney" = someone who can't be a house mother is what you got from my argument then you completely misread the entire thing. 0 out of 4.


Disclaimer: I did not read any minds in the typing of this post.

the McDonald's cashier...maybe wrote:


Well.... Not successfully.
You clearly think you're reading minds because every one of those arguments you seem to think I made we're never stated anywhere nor implied.

Do you see why I constantly say you argue against an argument you created yourself?

Of course you don't... Because you didn't understand a single word I just typed and are going to pretend I said something completely different.

rfenst
7 years ago
Popcorn please.
Continue on...
frankj1
7 years ago

Popcorn please.
Continue on...

rfenst wrote:


I've cut back. It gets in my teef.
MACS
7 years ago

I've cut back. It gets in my teef.

frankj1 wrote:



I keep dental floss handy.
frankj1
7 years ago

I keep dental floss handy.

MACS wrote:


cuz you're wicked smaht.
tailgater
7 years ago

Well... A player for a semipro team. I don't know the team names well enough that I assumed that was a professional team when I skimmed it . I'll give you this one though, mainly because you chose literally the least significant word in my argument to correct. It changes nothing. In fact, if you read my argument and decided that "player" was in any way an important part of it, then I'm sorry, but you get a 0 in reading comprehension. 0 out of 1.


victor809 wrote:



All I did was fill you in on who the victim was. It doesn't matter, and I didn't mean for my "correction" to trigger your fragile sensibilities. You truly are a snowflake.
victor809
7 years ago

All I did was fill you in on who the victim was. It doesn't matter, and I didn't mean for my "correction" to trigger your fragile sensibilities. You truly are a snowflake.

tailgater wrote:



Mhmmm... your only disagreement with my argument regarding your use of hernandez as an example of other clients was that he didn't kill another player.

Yet you continued with the argument:


Remind me not to ask the local criminal defense attorney to babysit.
Your wisdom is appreciated, Vic.

your own dumb arguments wrote:




My counter point is concise and accurate. The same professor/dean was on the defense team for a murderer.
Yet no protest.

someone still beating the "he defended a murderer so therefore their complaints about him defending a sexual assault defendant are totally political" drum wrote:



if you were merely "correcting" my inaccuracy but accepted my argument, then you wouldn't have kept beating that dumb drum.

You clearly didn't accept my argument. Yet your only criticism of it was that he wasn't a player.

Could it be that you didn't want to accept my argument, but couldn't come up with a good reason not to so you went after the silly trivia and then hoped no one would notice the argument was sound?

Nah... I'm gonna go with your reading comprehension is below community college level and you actually thought that you made a good argument there. That fits better with the rest of the evidence.
tailgater
7 years ago
You have truly lost it.
teedubbya
7 years ago
This thread is living proof of why none of you could get in to Harvard.
MACS
7 years ago
Who could afford it?

teedubbya
7 years ago
ZRX1200
7 years ago
I could.


I’m 1/1624th Cherokee.
teedubbya
7 years ago
You rented a Jeep once huh?
DrafterX
7 years ago
I seen some Harvard girls boobs before... 😟
teedubbya
7 years ago
I doubt that. Those chicks are smart.
DrafterX
7 years ago
Google is your friend... 😟
ZRX1200
7 years ago
I owned a Cherokee once, called her Lizzie.

Man that dipstick was tight
Users browsing this topic