User Controls
Posts by Elbow
-
2024-08-02 at 5:22 PM UTC in Introduce moderators
Originally posted by ner vegas I don't even remember you being on there
are you making things up
I don't remember me being there either! Like... at all. If you told me it was someone pretending to be me, I would find that equally as believable as the idea that it was actually me.
I'm looking through "my" posts there and it's quite cringe. I was not the absentee mod I thought I was, if this even was me being a mod. Although uhh... I'm thinking it was. Because this mf really was quite cringe. Bragging about his girlfriend, getting laid, having a job. Nigga what job? I've never held a job for longer than a month. -
2024-08-02 at 5:42 AM UTC in Introduce moderatorsI was a mod on totseans at one point apparently. I don't remember this at all, but someone showed me evidence of past-me yelling at the other mods for how they wanted to moderate (ie they wanted to moderate) and that totally seems like something I'd do. I'm the only person qualified to mod here, because I'm the only person with a proven track record of fighting for a moderation policy of aloof disinterest in actually moderating (the core philosophy of this community).
-
2024-08-02 at 3:08 AM UTC in Donald needs to take a hint
Originally posted by Bradley it just means it's really high quality or believable evidence at face value
It's a wrung below "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard of guilt, and literally just amounts to "presumptively true, based on the evidence presented". It does not mean "really high quality". It literally just means "there's more evidence than not that this is the case". π€π€π€
If a judge thinks it's 60% likely that you did the thing, that is grounds for a finding based on a preponderance of the evidence. -
2024-08-02 at 3:05 AM UTC in Donald needs to take a hint
Originally posted by Bradley do you even know what the phrase preponderance of the evidence means
Yes? Bradley, I'm a wordcel. My only asset is my high "verbal IQ", which isn't even a real thing. I don't know what everything means, but I know a startling amount of things.
Considering I was alluding to the differing evidentiary standards in civil court to imply that he wasn't lying, and it's true that he's never been found criminally guilty of anything... it should be obvious that I know. π€ -
2024-08-01 at 10:35 PM UTC in Donald needs to take a hintWait I guess he did catch a bunch of charges recently, but those were white collar business crimes. Not real crimes.
-
2024-08-01 at 10:32 PM UTC in Donald needs to take a hint
Originally posted by Bradley Our donald Trump?
Who can say? Certainly what I said is true of Donald Trump. It's up to you to decide whether you believe I meant it was true of Donald Trump.
Originally posted by Bradley He lied to me and told me he never got convicted of any crimes
I don't think he has, has he? Just been found liable in civil court for damages. Preponderance of the Evidence type shit. -
2024-08-01 at 10:27 PM UTC in Donald needs to take a hint
-
2024-08-01 at 8:29 PM UTC in Olympics clear transgender boxers to compete π«π·π₯πΌπ₯πͺπΊπ°
-
2024-08-01 at 1:06 PM UTC in Olympics clear transgender boxers to compete π«π·π₯πΌπ₯πͺπΊπ°As far as I can tell the evidence that she's a troon boils down to "she had a lot of testosterone in her blood a year ago and some arab guy said that proves she's got XY chromosomes". I mean, that seems like an extremely silly conclusion to jump to in the face of juicing in competitive sports, let alone the possibility of weird hormonal disorders.
-
2024-08-01 at 1:02 PM UTC in Olympics clear transgender boxers to compete π«π·π₯πΌπ₯πͺπΊπ°
Originally posted by Donald Trump Apparently the other boxer has some condition that causes her to have massive testosterone, but wasn't Assigned male at birth/AMAB/a bonus-pole haver/whatever the politically correct term is.
This seems likely to me, if only because I wouldn't expect fucking Algeria to be sending troons to the Olympics before the US or Canada or some shit tried it. -
2024-08-01 at 2:50 AM UTC in 510-935-5845cant fuckin believe scronny gave you my number ugh
-
2024-07-31 at 6:45 PM UTC in Maduro wins handily in Venezuelan elections, assisted by a few bumps.
-
2024-07-31 at 12:20 AM UTC in POV: your reading the NIS telegram group
-
2024-07-30 at 4:10 PM UTC in You all Lack Morals. And so I'm Leaving
-
2024-07-30 at 4:06 PM UTC in The Vulcan ManifestoWlkanos phter.
-
2024-07-30 at 2:55 PM UTC in 5000 rockets hit Israel
-
2024-07-30 at 2:13 PM UTC in What are you listening to right now, space nigga?
-
2024-07-30 at 1:52 PM UTC in 8 Stabbed in UK
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with Britain…
I am aware, but my point here is: more's the pity that is the case!
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Oh and lets remember how well gun availability in the USA has eradicated violent crime…
In the UK, it's illegal for any member of the public to carry a lethal or non-lethal self defense weapon. Not only are guns not legal, pepper spray is not legal either. Being able to legally own a gun under lock and key in your house is not "guns being legal" in any contextually meaningful capacity. As I said, for the relevant intent and purpose one might wish to possess a gun during a mass stabbing incident, you might as well be arguing "guns are legal because anyone can own a deactivated firearm". -
2024-07-30 at 12:10 PM UTC in 8 Stabbed in UK
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Guns are legal in Britain…
"Members of the public may own rifles and shotguns, however, they must be properly licensed. Most handguns have been banned in Great Britain since the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Handguns are permitted in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man which have their own applicable laws."
Look at what 2A protects in the USA and ask yourself whether such licensure truly allows for "legal guns", and especially whether it allows for "legal guns" in a context relevant to people's capacity to respond to acts of unprovoked violence. Such a system permits - permitting you have acquired the required permits - the ownership of firearms under lock and key within the home, at the discretion of the government. For most intents and purposes to which firearms might make themselves useful, this is wholly insufficient. Their usage in self-defense scenarios (say, against a crazed Rwandan stabbing children) and armed political resistance are more-or-less completely nullified.
This is kind of like saying "guns are legal because you're totally allowed to own a deactivated firearm." It's not quite as egregious as that, but it is about as egregious as it is conceivable to get before reaching that point. -
2024-07-29 at 2:45 PM UTC in What's yoru favorite olympic sport?Bro's maybe taking "cheek weld" a little too literally, but what do I know? I'm not an Olympic shooter. Looks like he's trying to fuse with the gun tho.
