ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 10
« First < 23456 78910 >
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Mistaken sexual identity could be deadly
Msmith 09:34 PM 06-09-2021
Virginia Tech LB allegedly killed man upon discovering he was not a woman after sexual encounter

"According to those police statements, Etute visited the victim's apartment on April 10 for oral sex after he was matched up with someone named "Angie" on Tinder. Etute returned to the apartment May 31 to engage in sexual activity and discovered the person he was matched up with was a man.

Etute told the police he punched the victim five times in the face and continued punching them when the person hit the ground and "stomped" on them. He heard "bubbling and gurgling" as he left the apartment, but didn't call the police..."

Link:https://www.yahoo.com/sports/virgini...165835045.html
[Reply]
Mephistopheles Janx 03:13 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
:-)

under the Virginia law it does not matter if the perceived gender/sexual orientation is accurate or not. thinking that it some how lessens the crime based off of some perception is completely outside of virginia law. the idea that the victim was deceptive does not lessen the charge.

the law doesn't give a fuck about you feelings or emotions. the law clearly defines that



https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/leg...ful+HB2132+hil
He killed a rapist that had sex with him without his consent. The fact that he was not in imminent danger and left "Angie" to drown in their own blood is what nets him manslaughter... IMO.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy...rginia&group=9

Originally Posted by :
How is consent defined?
“Without consent” includes any of the following:

...
the victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act; or
"Angie" intentionally deceived the dude by not telling him this was a homosexual act (as in... the NATURE of the act).
[Reply]
ChiTown 03:17 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Not every tranny looks like this


HAWT!
[Reply]
vailpass 03:17 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles Janx:
He killed a rapist that had sex with him without his consent. The fact that he was not in imminent danger and left "Angie" to drown in their own blood is what nets him manslaughter... IMO.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy...rginia&group=9



"Angie" intentionally deceived the dude by not telling him this was a homosexual act (as in... the NATURE of the act).
Agreed. Dude didnít need to die. But the ass-kicking part?


[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 03:18 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Sounds like a science fiction screenplay. Any movie studios interested?
There is a set. All human beings who exist, have ever existed or will exist. Lets call that set "all of humanity". You belong in that set because you exist and you are a human being and that set contains 100% of all human beings who exist, have existed or will exist.

You can divide the set "all of humanity" into two subsets. Lets divide it into:

Subset A "99% of all humans beings who exist, existed or will exist.
Subset B "1% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist"

Are you more likely to belong to subset A or subset B? Well if there is nothing special about you, then you likely belong in the set that contains 99% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist. If you belong to subset A, then either humanity will very soon go extinct(like in your life time or couple hundreds years after) or its fertility rates will crater and our extinction happens over a few thousand years. Either way there are not to many human left to be born compared to the number of those who are/were already born.

If you want to be in subset B which means humanity is going to exist quit a bit longer...that there are many more human left to be born than the amount that already exist/have existed, then you should vote in a way that maximizes you are in subset B. You should vote for the party that best promotes biological clarity and fertility.

The math suggest your should vote right. The math suggest you should vote for the party that takes us back about 100 years.

Think about that shit for a minute you progressive punk :-)
[Reply]
Otter 03:40 PM 06-10-2021
I'd have to see a pic of angie to determine his level of guilt.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 04:08 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
In the world I came from, the left kept the right in check and the right kept the left in check. In the world I came from you had republicans who were more "progressive" than some democrats and democrats who were more conservative than some republicans. Consequently you had a lot more bi partisanship when it came to tackling the worlds problems.

In the world I find myself in today a few tech oligarchs upset the balance, and the ruling parties have become a lot more homegeneous and polarized. I am afraid that inevitably it is going to end with a lot of death, destruction and chaos. You are not going to change human nature in an instant. Biological straight men want to have sex with biological women. If you are 100% man, you're going to be a problem in the eye of the people who want to overide billions of years of evolution and socially engineer society. The easiest and most economic solution is to get rid of you. You were the product of natural selection but at some point intelligent selection is going to take over. If that transition happens in your life time are you going to make the cut?

You should be voting right, right now....if you are 100% man.
El turdo gordo is a drama queen whackjob.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06-10-2021, 04:11 PM
This message has been deleted by BucEyedPea. Reason: wrong post
cosmo20002 04:13 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
There is a set. All human beings who exist, have ever existed or will exist. Lets call that set "all of humanity". You belong in that set because you exist and you are a human being and that set contains 100% of all human beings who exist, have existed or will exist.

You can divide the set "all of humanity" into two subsets. Lets divide it into:

Subset A "99% of all humans beings who exist, existed or will exist.
Subset B "1% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist"

Are you more likely to belong to subset A or subset B? Well if there is nothing special about you, then you likely belong in the set that contains 99% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist. If you belong to subset A, then either humanity will very soon go extinct(like in your life time or couple hundreds years after) or its fertility rates will crater and our extinction happens over a few thousand years. Either way there are not to many human left to be born compared to the number of those who are/were already born.

If you want to be in subset B which means humanity is going to exist quit a bit longer...that there are many more human left to be born than the amount that already exist/have existed, then you should vote in a way that maximizes you are in subset B. You should vote for the party that best promotes biological clarity and fertility.

The math suggest your should vote right. The math suggest you should vote for the party that takes us back about 100 years.

Think about that shit for a minute you progressive punk :-)
^it's like a somehow more-boring babbly lee.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 04:36 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
There is a set. All human beings who exist, have ever existed or will exist. Lets call that set "all of humanity". You belong in that set because you exist and you are a human being and that set contains 100% of all human beings who exist, have existed or will exist.

You can divide the set "all of humanity" into two subsets. Lets divide it into:

Subset A "99% of all humans beings who exist, existed or will exist.
Subset B "1% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist"

Are you more likely to belong to subset A or subset B? Well if there is nothing special about you, then you likely belong in the set that contains 99% of all human beings who exist, existed, or will exist. If you belong to subset A, then either humanity will very soon go extinct(like in your life time or couple hundreds years after) or its fertility rates will crater and our extinction happens over a few thousand years. Either way there are not to many human left to be born compared to the number of those who are/were already born.

If you want to be in subset B which means humanity is going to exist quit a bit longer...that there are many more human left to be born than the amount that already exist/have existed, then you should vote in a way that maximizes you are in subset B. You should vote for the party that best promotes biological clarity and fertility.

The math suggest your should vote right. The math suggest you should vote for the party that takes us back about 100 years.

Think about that shit for a minute you progressive punk :-)
1. Despite tolerance of LGBTQ people, the vast majority of people are heterosexual and will remain that way. Unless you have some statistics to the contrary, your beliefs are unsupported, bald speculation.

2. The fertility rate has indeed fallen significantly. This is a problem for the economy. It's not a problem for the survival of our species. People will continue to reproduce. Again, unless you've got some evidence showing extinction by way of reduced reproduction . . .

Put that in your progressive pipe and smoke it, you progressive punk. :-)
[Reply]
Bowser 04:37 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
^it's like a somehow more-boring babbly lee.
You're pretty cool and enthralling, though
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 04:43 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
^it's like a somehow more-boring babbly lee.
BabyLee and you are not on the same level....so I can see how you would not connect with him and find him boring. I don't always see eye to eye with BabyLee but he is someone who I judge to be wicked smart. I judge you to be an intellectual slug if you're curious.

You think it should just be that humanity coasts along into indefinite existence? You're a fool if you think that. Existence is a struggle. Its hard. We will screw it up if we are not careful about it.
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 04:56 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
1. Despite tolerance of LGBTQ people, the vast majority of people are heterosexual and will remain that way. Unless you have some statistics to the contrary, your beliefs are unsupported, bald speculation.

2. The fertility rate has indeed fallen significantly. This is a problem for the economy. It's not a problem for the survival of our species. People will continue to reproduce. Again, unless you've got some evidence showing extinction by way of reduced reproduction . . .

Put that in your progressive pipe and smoke it, you progressive punk. :-)
The fertility rate in the USA has fallen below replacement levels. Unless it is reversed it is only a matter of time before Americans cease to be. If Math is useful for anything it is useful for letting us know if were headed down the path of family planning planning/indoctrinating ourselves into extinction.

Someday in the near future, you're going to read an article that tells you the world's fertility rate has dipped below replacement levels. Nobody will care though because at the moment that happens, from the perspective of the individual, life that day will be as stable as the day before.. That will go on and on until the human population is very tiny, then a common tragedy, like a Carrington event, wipes us out.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 05:05 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The fertility rate in the USA has fallen below replacement levels. Unless it is reversed it is only a matter of time before Americans cease to be. If Math is useful for anything it is useful for letting us know if were headed down the path of family planning planning/indoctrinating ourselves into extinction.

Someday in the near future, you're going to read an article that tells you the world's fertility rate has dipped below replacement levels. Nobody will care though because at the moment that happens, from the perspective of the individual, life that day will be as stable as the day before.. That will go on and on until the human population is very tiny, then a common tragedy, like a Carrington event, wipes us out.
Well then, what are you doing on the internet? Sounds like you need to get to fucking.

Isn't Jesus coming back before we go extinct?
[Reply]
El Lobo Gordo 05:10 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Well then, what are you doing on the internet? Sounds like you need to get to ****ing.

Isn't Jesus coming back before we go extinct?
What you just wrote is the kind of post one writes when they want to retort intelligently but can't.

You can examine the arguments. You can research fertility rates. You will come to the conclusion I am correct. But you won't want me to be correct so you will rationalize into existence things which are going to happen to make me wrong.

You have your Jesus too. You just don't know it.
[Reply]
Hydrae 05:17 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
The fertility rate in the USA has fallen below replacement levels. Unless it is reversed it is only a matter of time before Americans cease to be. If Math is useful for anything it is useful for letting us know if were headed down the path of family planning planning/indoctrinating ourselves into extinction.

Someday in the near future, you're going to read an article that tells you the world's fertility rate has dipped below replacement levels. Nobody will care though because at the moment that happens, from the perspective of the individual, life that day will be as stable as the day before.. That will go on and on until the human population is very tiny, then a common tragedy, like a Carrington event, wipes us out.
As the population drops it will eventually mean a loss of technology. As we revert back to a more middle ages lifestyle the reproduction rate will expand. It is not fertility that is the issue, it is the conscience decision to have less or no children in all of today's first world countries. If the time comes that the population shrinks by any significant percentage more children will be born, I have no doubt.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 05:35 PM 06-10-2021
Originally Posted by El Lobo Gordo:
What you just wrote is the kind of post one writes when they want to retort intelligently but can't.

You can examine the arguments. You can research fertility rates. You will come to the conclusion I am correct. But you won't want me to be correct so you will rationalize into existence things which are going to happen to make me wrong.

You have your Jesus too. You just don't know it.
:-)

ELG, there is a lacuna between your accurate notation of falling fertility rates and your conclusion that falling fertility rates will cause extinction of the human species.

Happy now?
[Reply]
Page 6 of 10
« First < 23456 78910 >
Up