Joe Rogan Thread

[vy65]

This is a thread to post videos of JR dropping truth nukes like the following:

wK9GnWVWolo

3-zPKLTFrqY

C8LRk8JCR_E

that one's for Blake

[vy65]

HZMtlE_0rew

[TSA]

Dude does great standup, smart too.

[vy65]

Ou76pNQJUss

[Th'Pusher]

Joe Rogan fans actually exist? :lol
:lol fear factor

[vy65]

Joe Rogan fans actually exist? :lol
:lol fear factor

Nothing to contribute, per the par.

Also painfully obvious that you don't listen to one of the most popular podcasts in the country.

:lol Th'slurper

[Th'Pusher]

:lol Maynard Manson's a big Joe Rogan fan.

You're fucking right I don't listen to that bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing to contribute, per the par.

Also painfully obvious that you don't listen to one of the most popular podcasts in the country.

:lol Th'slurper

Meh. let him starve.

[vy65]

Why's anything said in the videos posted bullshit? And what's wrong with Maynard?

[vy65]

Meh. let him starve.


Nothing to contribute, per the par.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck you, you evil shit. I don't feel the need to contribute anythign to your threads except the derision you deserve.

[vy65]

Fuck you, you evil shit. I don't feel the need to contribute anythign to your threads except the derision you deserve.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

[Clipper Nation]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png
:lmao

[vy65]

I need to take the time to comment about how I'm not taking the time to comment


:cry VY you meanie :cry

[Th'Pusher]

Why's anything said in the videos posted bullshit? And what's wrong with Maynard?

I didn't mean the content was bullshit. I simply meant Joe Rogan in general is kinda bullshit. I didn't listen to the vids because I literally could not give two fucks about anything Joe fucking Rogan has to say. The guy is a spare.

Nothing's wrong with Maynard. I'm a fan myself. But I'm also not an over-poster of his music. You come off like the weird uberfan. You know, they guy who buys his wine and has shit like this custom framed in his living room

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/loudwire.com/files/2012/02/Tool-Maynard-James-Keenan.jpg

[spurraider21]

:lol evil

[vy65]

Crofl what? How many times have I mentioned Maynard in my posts?

[vy65]

Th'slurper keeps track of posters' musical preferences?

That's not weird in a crazy, cyber-stalker kinda way at all.

[Th'Pusher]

Crofl what? How many times have I mentioned Maynard in my posts?

You posted two songs in a tread i was reading earlier.

[vy65]

I didn't mean the content was bullshit. I simply meant Joe Rogan in general is kinda bullshit.

Powerful stuff, thanks. :tu

[vy65]

You posted two songs in a tread i was reading earlier.

Which 2? I posted "useful idiot" because of the song title, not the song itself.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Th'Libcuck throwing another typical meltdown

[vy65]

:lol slurper saying a guy who's podcast is more popular than Neil deGrasse Tyson is a "spare"

How many people tune in to your shitastic takes of "umm, I don't like him, he's kinda bullshit?"

And also inb4 "VY UR A JRE FANBOI lololololololol"

[Th'Pusher]

Powerful stuff, thanks. :tu

I'm glad you find value in Joe fucking Rogan's social commentary.

[vy65]

I'm glad you find value in Joe fucking Rogan's social commentary.

Sweet thanks.

[vy65]

You posted two songs in a tread i was reading earlier.

Almost forgot this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

[Th'Pusher]

Which 2? I posted "useful idiot" because of the song title, not the song itself.

Not sure. I think you may have posted the wrong link, then edited it. It's fine. Not a big deal. You're not a big MJK fan.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol Th'Libcuck throwing another typical meltdown

What's with the overuse of the term cuck? I mean I get it for Blake, but everyone who has a differing opinion?

Godord Xeer
:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Almost forgot this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

A meme! Smart.

[RandomGuy]

[lame attempts to pass off being called out]

(shrugs)

Meh. Sorry, fuckwad.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/fcac02fa-b206-478e-92ee-5387204574ef.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/134/676/1306110522536.jpg

[RandomGuy]

:lol evil

Ask him about armenians.

[Clipper Nation]

What's with the overuse of the term cuck? I mean I get it for Blake, but everyone who has a differing opinion?

Godord Xeer
:lol
Liberalism and cuckoldry go hand in hand, tbh.

[Th'Pusher]

Liberalism and cuckoldry go hand in hand, tbh.

Prove it Godord.

[Clipper Nation]

Prove it Godord.
You're living proof.

[Th'Pusher]

You're living proof.
No Godord. I've never been a cuckold. So all you have is opinion, formed from emotion. Pretty typical tbh.

[Clipper Nation]

I've never been a cuckold.
:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

...and, he's done.

[Clipper Nation]

...and, he's done.
And you're still a cuck.

[Th'Pusher]

And you're still a cuck.
Another emotional response.

[vy65]

Not sure. I think you may have posted the wrong link, then edited it. It's fine. Not a big deal. You're not a big MJK fan.

Keeping track of my you tubes and which posts I edit? Yeah that's not stalkerish at all.

[vy65]

Slurper, you're in good company tho. RG pulled up a thread of mine from months ago to call me :cry evil :cry

For all you "liberals" decry the surveillance state, you sure are NSA'ing this forum up nicely.

[Clipper Nation]

Another emotional response.
Every time you post:

http://i.imgur.com/dwLN4Lh.jpg

[vy65]

I've never been a cuckold.

[vy65]

Ask him about armenians.

Medz abooshmeness.

[Th'Pusher]

Keeping track of my you tubes and which posts I edit? Yeah that's not stalkerish at all.

Not keeping track. I read it. The initial clip made no sense as it was an interlude. You must have fixed posting useful idiot, making you're astute point.

Trust me dude. I have no interest in stalking you. I know you're type. You're what I would consider to be a total douche bag.

[vy65]

Just want to make sure everyone is clear on this: Joe Rogan goes in raw on liberal causes/issues and the self proclaimed liberals try to start a flame war instead of coming up with some sort of response to the vids.

[Clipper Nation]

"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon, 1973

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - Bill Clinton, 1998

"I've never been a cuckold." - Th'Slurper, 2015

[vy65]

Not keeping track. I read it. The initial clip made no sense as it was an interlude. You must have fixed posting useful idiot, making you're astute point.

Trust me dude. I have no interest in stalking you. I know you're type. You're what I would consider to be a total douche bag.

Keeping track of what videos posters post and the edits they make to said posts is stalkerish.

I doubt anyone else who nonchalantly browses these here webs would remember who posts which videos

But backtrack some more. You're doing a fine job

lol you're what I call a douche bag. Vicious burn

[Th'Pusher]

Every time you post:

http://i.imgur.com/dwLN4Lh.jpg

I'm not trolling. You're the one who's incapable of engaging people who have differing opinions without you rolling over and calling them a libcuktard or some variation thereof.

[vy65]

"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon, 1973

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - Bill Clinton, 1998

"I've never been a cuckold." - Th'Slurper, 2015

The Outing

[vy65]

I'm not trolling. You're the one who's incapable of engaging people who have differing opinions without you rolling over and calling them a libcuktard or some variation thereof.


I didn't mean the content was bullshit. I simply meant Joe Rogan in general is kinda bullshit. I didn't listen to the vids because I literally could not give two fucks about anything Joe fucking Rogan has to say. The guy is a spare

Oh boy

[Clipper Nation]

I'm not trolling. You're the one who's incapable of engaging people who have differing opinions without you rolling over and calling them a libcuktard or some variation thereof.
Liberalism is a mental illness. Libs such as yourself are too far gone to be reasoned with, tbh.

[Th'Pusher]

Keeping track of what videos posters post and the edits they make to said posts is stalkerish.

I doubt anyone else who nonchalantly browses these here webs would remember who posts which videos

But backtrack some more. You're doing a fine job

lol you're what I call a douche bag. Vicious burn

No backtracking. I read the tread and clicked on your tool clip. As I mentioned, I'm a fan. It was an interlude. Not sure which one. Are you denying that you edited the clip. I then loaded the thread again and saw useful idiot. I mistakenly though you posted two songs, hence my error upstream. It's not that big of a deal. No need to harp on it maynard james manson.

[vy65]

No backtracking. I read the tread and clicked on your tool clip. As I mentioned, I'm a fan. It was an interlude. Not sure which one. Are you denying that you edited the clip. I then loaded the thread again and saw useful idiot. I mistakenly though you posted two songs, hence my error upstream. It's not that big of a deal. No need to harp on it maynard james manson.

Getting pretty Agro with those NSA tactics

Crofl "are you denying you edited your post"

Do I get to talk to a lawyer before answering

:lol th'iamnotacuck

[InRareForm]

Joe Rogan has good takes, but I don't think he deserves a thread lol

[Th'Pusher]

Liberalism is a mental illness. Libs such as yourself are too far gone to be reasoned with, tbh.

:tu

I'll remember that the next time I read you getting your ass handed to you after you come in here vomiting the emotional tripe some email told you to get upset about, Godord.

Remember when you googled "Has a libertarian society ever existed", then started plagiarizing it?

Xeer :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Getting pretty Agro with those NSA tactics

Crofl "are you denying you edited your post"

Do I get to talk to a lawyer before answering

:lol th'iamnotacuck

Yeah, it's really NSA to read a tread once, then load it up again to see what others contributed. You're flailing dude.

[Th'Pusher]

Related...

I don't watch the UFC, but I was at a party a few weeks ago and the fight was on. When commentator Joe Rogan popped on the screen my wife and I looked at each other and just started laughing.

[Clipper Nation]

:tu

I'll remember that the next time I read you getting your ass handed to you after you come in here vomiting the emotional tripe some email told you to get upset about, Godord.

Remember when you googled "Has a libertarian society ever existed", then started plagiarizing it?

Xeer :lol
Oh noes! I read up on something and learned about it! Can't have that... nope, we'd all be better off doing what you do, spamming passive-aggressive shitposts at everything you disagree with while providing zero takes of your own. You're the junior-varsity version of ChumpDumper.

:lmao "I've never been a cuckold" - Th'Cuck

[Clipper Nation]

Related...

I don't watch the UFC, but I was at a party a few weeks ago and the fight was on. When commentator Joe Rogan popped on the screen my wife and I looked at each other and just started laughing.
Then your bull told you to shut the fuck up and go back to your cucktainer while he watched the fight.

[Th'Pusher]

Oh noes! I read up on something and learned about it! Can't have that... nope, we'd all be better off doing what you do, spamming passive-aggressive shitposts at everything you disagree with while providing zero takes of your own. You're the junior-varsity version of ChumpDumper.

:lmao "I've never been a cuckold" - Th'Cuck

No. There was no reading up. I posted the question, has a libertarian society ever existed? You proceeded to google that question and plagiarize the top result.

:lol Godord
:lol Xeer

The greatest libertarian societies to ever exist..that even libertarians have to google to know they existed. :lol

You're literally one of the dumbest, illogical and hyper-emotional posters on ST.

[Th'Pusher]

Then your bull told you to shut the fuck up and go back to your cucktainer while he watched the fight.

That little irishman nearly lost his ass.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Related...

I don't watch the UFC, but I was at a party a few weeks ago and the fight was on. When commentator Joe Rogan popped on the screen my wife and I looked at each other and just started laughing.

I used to think the same as you and then heard an interview with him on DMT. Starting listening to him a bit afterwards and he's actually intelligent and very entertaining. And as I said earlier his standup comedy is really good. Give him a try, sounds like you haven't.

[vy65]

I used to think the same as you and then heard an interview with him on DMT. Starting listening to him a bit afterwards and he's actually intelligent and very entertaining. And as I said earlier his standup comedy is really good. Give him a try, sounds like you haven't.

His DMT documentary is fucking crazy

[Clipper Nation]

No. There was no reading up. I posted the question, has a libertarian society ever existed? You proceeded to google that question and plagiarize it?

:lol Godord
:lol Xeer

The greatest libertarian societies to ever exist..that even libertarians have to google to know they existed. :lol

You're literally one of the dumbest, illogical and hyper-emotional posters on ST.
You asked, I answered, cuck. Meanwhile, just like the even older and more pathetic version of you (Chump), you have no takes of your own ever, and you only ever post to derail threads that go against your agenda.

:lmao Calling people emotional while melting down because someone on the Internet likes Joe Rogan's podcast
:lmao Cuck

[Th'Pusher]

I used to think the same as you and then heard an interview with him on DMT. Starting listening to him a bit afterwards and he's actually intelligent and very entertaining. And as I said earlier his standup comedy is really good. Give him a try, sounds like you haven't.

You're right. I haven't. But god bless, I dont have time to listen to podcasts of Joe Rogan. I'm just not that interested. But thanks for the rational response.

[vy65]

Related...

I don't watch the UFC, but I was at a party a few weeks ago and the fight was on. When commentator Joe Rogan popped on the screen my wife and I looked at each other and just started laughing.

Your life sounds like the shittiest sitcom ever.

[Clipper Nation]

Your life sounds like the shittiest sitcom ever.

He's the Modern Family of ST posters. Trying really hard to be funny, "progressive" and edgy at the same time, while in reality, he's humorless, played-out and vanilla.

[Th'Pusher]

You asked, I answered, cuck. Meanwhile, just like the even older and more pathetic version of you (Chump), you have no takes of your own ever, and you only ever post to derail threads that go against your agenda.

:lmao Calling people emotional while melting down because someone on the Internet likes Joe Rogan's podcast
:lmao Cuck

I wasn't intentionally trying to derail the thread. I was literally surprised someone found value in Joe Rogan's "truth bombs". Again, my wife and I looked at each other and started laughing when we saw him. "Where the fuck has this asshole been", is what I asked her if I recall correctly.

[Th'Pusher]

Your life sounds like the shittiest sitcom ever.

Glad you're still reading. seems like you have a bunch of Joe Rogan fans eschewing my unintentional thread derail in an effort to support Joe Rogan's "truth bombs" :lol

[pgardn]

Joe Rogan has good takes, but I don't think he deserves a thread lol

I like him as an MMA announcer.
He does a good job IMO.

[vy65]

I think opening up to get a deep fucking from others is a Slurper family tradition

[Th'Pusher]

Truth bombs as an MMA commentator :tu

I wonder if they're calculated truth bombs?

[vy65]

Truth bombs as an MMA commentator :tu

I wonder if they're calculated truth bombs?

Try harder buddy

[Th'Pusher]

Try harder buddy

Why? You look like a fucking dumbass in this thread.

[vy65]

Why? You look like a fucking dumbass in this thread.

Maybe you should stop trying to act tough and go back to cataloging my posts

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're right. I haven't. But god bless, I dont have time to listen to podcasts of Joe Rogan. I'm just not that interested. But thanks for the rational response.
Check out one of his youtubes then, you've got 10 mins. Like vy said the ones on DMT are crazy. Or if you like standup comedy check out one of those. Rogan is really bright, goes on those same type awesome rants like Carlin used to do.

[ElNono]

Not sure who this guy is (I must be getting old :lol), but I'll check it out when I have some time... thanks.

I'm definitely socially liberal, but certain combos of feminism, PC and entitlement mentality irks the fuck out of me. Kinda like listening to jeebotards, tbh

[Joe Rogan]

Nice thread. Carry on my wayward sons.

[pgardn]

Nice thread. Carry on my wayward sons.

Wayward?

You are an awesome MMA announcer. You explain the holds, point out details of the match I would never see, and get excited about what your doing. I think I nailed your aptitude as a gifted commentator.

[pgardn]

I'm definitely socially liberal, but certain combos of feminism, PC and entitlement mentality irks the fuck out of me. Kinda like listening to jeebotards, tbh

This is how I would describe myself. But conservatives tell me I'm ultra liberal of the worst kind, and liberals tell me I'm a reactionary lunatic.

[Shastafarian]

It all makes sense now OP. "They took mah video games!" And here I thought it was just because you had been rejected countless times. Oh wait, were you also rejected by women playing your stories...err games?

If I want advice on how to get someone to eat a sheep eyeball or various types of animal penis, I'll consult Joe Rogan. Until then...

:lol Joe Rogan thread.

[vy65]

Not sure who this guy is (I must be getting old :lol), but I'll check it out when I have some time... thanks.

I'm definitely socially liberal, but certain combos of feminism, PC and entitlement mentality irks the fuck out of me. Kinda like listening to jeebotards, tbh

http://memecrunch.com/meme/4VKDC/mein-neger/image.png?w=400&c=1

[vy65]

crofl rastafarian burnout talking fear factor trash

[lakerhaterade]

crofl rastafarian burnout talking fear factor trash
:lol He's like a slightly-younger-haven't-had-kids version of ohmwrecker. He shows up in threads like this and does his SJW shill act without fail.

[Shastafarian]

crofl rastafarian burnout talking fear factor trash

You started a thread about fear factor trash. I just find it funny you're oblivious to how obvious the reasons behind it are.

[vy65]

You started a thread about fear factor trash. I just find it funny you're oblivious to how obvious the reasons behind it are.

Was the time period FF was on the air the last time you were lucid?

[Clipper Nation]

It all makes sense now OP. "They took mah video games!" And here I thought it was just because you had been rejected countless times. Oh wait, were you also rejected by women playing your stories...err games?

If I want advice on how to get someone to eat a sheep eyeball or various types of animal penis, I'll consult Joe Rogan. Until then...

:lol Joe Rogan thread.
Are you retarded? Sarkeesian is the Skip Bayless of the gaming media. She barely even plays the games she criticizes, and she obsesses over the lack of "diversity" in gaming even if it's not historically accurate. She's even circled all the way back around to moralizing about violence in video games even though any link between that and real life has been roundly debunked. Even Jack Thompson thinks she's a fraud.

[vy65]

Are you retarded? Sarkeesian is the Skip Bayless of the gaming media. She barely even plays the games she criticizes, and she obsesses over the lack of "diversity" in gaming even if it's not historically accurate. She's even circled all the way back around to moralizing about violence in video games even though any link between that and real life has been roundly debunked. Even Jack Thompson thinks she's a fraud.

Home schooled druggie burnout doing home schooled druggie burnout things ...

[SpursforSix]

Here's my breakdown of Joe Rogan that I've seen:

Newsradio - funny show and he was funny in it
Fearfactor - thought he was kind of a doofus
UFC- think he does a good job - calls it like a fan
Stand up - funny funny funny - surprisingly intelligent takes given his TV persona
Podcast - brutally honest and makes good points, doesn't say shit he doesn't believe in or can't defend

Final Joe Rogan rating : incomplete

[InRareForm]

his podcast with neil degresse is cool. check it out.

[Blake]

C8LRk8JCR_E

that one's for Blake

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

[vy65]

^ Don't be a culture vulture, cucky

[lakerhaterade]

^ Don't be a culture vulture, cucky
:lol My cuckold letter thread was deleted. Soooooooomebody snitched to get it removed. Hm, I wonder who.

[Blake]

:lol My cuckold letter thread was deleted. Soooooooomebody snitched to get it removed. Hm, I wonder who.

I posted in that thread but that won't stop you from thinking it was me

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

[Blake]

^ Don't be a culture vulture, cucky

Lol you vultured it just the same, dummy.

And it's appropriate where I put it so there's that

[vy65]

No I didn't, dummy.

Have anything to say about the vids? Or do you just wanna deflect because you got nothing per/par?

[Blake]

No I didn't, dummy.

Have anything to say about the vids? Or do you just wanna deflect because you got nothing per/par?

So you're claiming you came up with the catch phrase of living rent free? Rofl ok, dummy.

I'm not gonna spend a minute watching a YouTube of a dude I don't give a messy shit about, dummy. I'm just here to lol at you thinking of me while you were aiming that catch phrase at others, dummy.

[Shastafarian]

Are you retarded? Sarkeesian is the Skip Bayless of the gaming media. She barely even plays the games she criticizes, and she obsesses over the lack of "diversity" in gaming even if it's not historically accurate. She's even circled all the way back around to moralizing about violence in video games even though any link between that and real life has been roundly debunked. Even Jack Thompson thinks she's a fraud.That's fascinating. But it really doesn't have much to do with vy65's hatred (fear) of women. And the fact you know so much about it is actually pretty funny, in a pathetic way.


Home schooled druggie burnout doing home schooled druggie burnout things ...You got me dead to rights. Everything except the home schooled, druggie, burnout stuff. Everything else is spot on though. Was it an attractive woman or an ugly woman that sent you into your spiral?

[vy65]

When have I ever said that I hate women? I love them, no hate.

The fact that you equate criticizing sarkesian or posting JRE videos with hating women is exactly the problem.

Guess you're not much of an autodidact considering you're too stupid to see the distinction

[Shastafarian]

When have I ever said that I hate women? I love them, no hate.

The fact that you equate criticizing sarkesian or posting JRE videos with hating women is exactly the problem.

Guess you're not much of an autodidact considering you're too stupid to see the distinction

Any person can plainly see you harbor a resentment towards women. You started a thread about a C-list celebrity who rails against random women on twitter for being feminists. Just the fact that feminism bothers you so much makes my point clear.

Also, the autodidact bit is in reference to Wild Cobra. I attended college and graduate school and didn't burn out from either.

[vy65]

^ follows the Michael Sonmore school of feminism.

Not being a feminist isn't the same as hating women dummy. Your grad program must have sucked balls.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When have I ever said that I hate women? I love them, no hate.

The fact that you equate criticizing sarkesian or posting JRE videos with hating women is exactly the problem.

Guess you're not much of an autodidact considering you're too stupid to see the distinction

Well there is your idealization of women that you like and then there are actual women.

[Blake]

Not sure who this guy is (I must be getting old :lol), but I'll check it out when I have some time... thanks.


Oh he was the host of Fear Factor and does UFC color commenting which means he really knows politics

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh he was the host of Fear Factor and does UFC color commenting which means he really knows politics



I'm not gonna spend a minute watching a YouTube of a dude I don't give a messy shit about, dummy.

your opinion carries so much weight

[vy65]

If Joe Rogan is such a meathead idiot, shouldn't it be easy to watch a 3 minute video and articulate why he's wrong? Why can't the cuck crew do this?

[vy65]

Well there is your idealization of women that you like and then there are actual women.

not only does this make no sense, but you make for a shitty amateur shrink.

[Blake]

your opinion carries so much weight

Lol salty

[Blake]

If Joe Rogan is such a meathead idiot, shouldn't it be easy to watch a 3 minute video and articulate why he's wrong? Why can't the cuck crew do this?

instead of asking others to do work, how about you go over his main points and articulate why he's correct and why it's relevant? Why can't you do that?

[vy65]

instead of asking others to do work, how about you go over his main points and articulate why he's correct and why it's relevant? Why can't you do that?

You're at WC levels of stupidity/laziness

[Blake]

:cry You're at WC levels of stupidity/laziness :cry

what a whiny bitch. It's your thread. Do your own work. Why can't you explain your videos, dumbfuck?

[TheSanityAnnex]

what a whiny bitch. It's your thread. Do your own work. Why can't you explain your videos, dumbfuck?
:lol says the guy whining about the videos without even watching them

[vy65]

what a whiny bitch. It's your thread. Do your own work. Why can't you explain your videos, dumbfuck?

Says the guy who refuses to watch 3 minutes of a podcast from the UFC guy. Why are you so scared?

[vy65]

Funny that the refuseniks have spent substantially more time saying j:lole r:lolgan than the 3-5 minutes it would take to watch a clip and comment. What are they so scared of?

[Joe Rogan]

If Joe Rogan is such a meathead idiot, shouldn't it be easy to watch a 3 minute video and articulate why he's wrong? Why can't the cuck crew do this?

I'm never wrong. Just misunderstood.

[Blake]

:lol says the guy whining about the videos without even watching them

I'm just here to lol op.

:cry why won't you watch my edgy YouTubes :cry

Lol op

[Blake]

Funny that the refuseniks have spent substantially more time saying j:lole r:lolgan than the 3-5 minutes it would take to watch a clip and comment. What are they so scared of?

It's apathy.

This is your thread, your YouTube. Why are you too chicken shit and lazy to articulate a summary opinion on it?

[vy65]

It's apathy.

This is your thread, your YouTube. Why are you too chicken shit and lazy to articulate a summary opinion on it?

You're really showing me with all your lol'ing op.

Why is it so hard for you to watch a three minute video from someone you think is an idiot? Why are you so scared? Why do you need someone to summarize a 3 minute video? Are you seriously that stupid?

[Clipper Nation]

what a whiny bitch.
:lol You live in a cucktainer out back while another man fucks your wife. You don't get to call anyone else a bitch.

[Blake]

:lol You live in a cucktainer out back while another man fucks your wife. You don't get to call anyone else a bitch.

rent free 24/7/365, bitch.

[Blake]

You're really showing me with all your lol'ing op.

Why is it so hard for you to watch a three minute video from someone you think is an idiot? Why are you so scared? Why do you need someone to summarize a 3 minute video? Are you seriously that stupid?

This is your thread, dumbass :lol

If you don't care enough to articulate a summary opinion on it, why are you whining that nobody else is caring about your edgy YouTube?

Gotdamn you're a whiny idiot. :lol :lol :lol

[vy65]

What sort of mongoloid retard needs cliffs notes for a 3 minute video?

Why are you so scared to watch the clips Blake?

[Blake]

What s:cryrt of mongoloid retard needs cliffs n:cdytes for a 3 minute video?

Why are y:cryu s:cry scared to watch the clips Blake?

Lol op. Great thread.

[Clipper Nation]

rent free 24/7/365, bitch.
Your bull doesn't charge rent on the cucktainer? He's missing out on a steady income stream, tbh.

[vy65]

http://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Taylor-219x219.jpg

[Shastafarian]

^ follows the Michael Sonmore school of feminism.

Not being a feminist isn't the same as hating women dummy. Your grad program must have sucked balls.

Starting a thread about a C-list celebrity who gets offended by feminists isn't "not being a feminist", dummy. You clearly resent women. Was she ugly or pretty? I'm curious.

As far as the videos go, they're laughable. Grown men acting like little girls with regards to people who don't agree with them. The co-host from the first video is especially idiotic. They make no valid points. Their go-to reaction seems to be "Oh man" or "Oh jesus christ". They also don't seem to actually know what feminism is. They equate radical feminism with feminists who want equality for and empowerment of, women. Rogen even mentioned how he thinks "equality specialists" are A-OK.

:lol equality specialists
:lol backtracking when the phrase you make up sounds stupid
:lol watching people eat penises

[Shastafarian]

What societal harm do feminists inflict?

[vy65]

Starting a thread about a C-list celebrity who gets offended by feminists isn't "not being a feminist", dummy. You clearly resent women. Was she ugly or pretty? I'm curious.

Where'd he get offended?

Only a Michael Sonmore type would equate posting J:lole R:lolgan Youtubes with resenting women. All dem drugs must've fried a circuit or two if you think criticizing SJW = hating women.


As far as the videos go, they're laughable. Grown men acting like little girls with regards to people who don't agree with them. The co-host from the first video is especially idiotic. They make no valid points. Their go-to reaction seems to be "Oh man" or "Oh jesus christ". They also don't seem to actually know what feminism is. They equate radical feminism with feminists who want equality for and empowerment of, women. Rogen even mentioned how he thinks "equality specialists" are A-OK.

This is WC level of trite stupidity. "But but but ... they're stoopid because their stupid."

Noticeably absent from this post is any mention of

a) how fucked up university investigations of rape allegations are
b) how skewed our laws are directed against holding women accountable for making fake rape allegations
c) how little focus is paid on the rate of rape in prison vs. the relatively lower rate of rape in the general population
d) how poorly we deal with women who change their mind regarding consent after having had a couple of drinks with a guy
e) how many of the laws reflected in a)-e) constrain female agency -- something any feminist should oppose
f) how liberals ignore misogynistic attacks on women on the rate
g) how fucked up divorce laws with respect to men

Guess you shouldn't have smoked that bowl while watching them Youtubes, Shasta. Now you can go back to letting Jamal pound your woman while you feel proud of being a f:lolminist

:lol burnout
:lol feminism means cuckoldry
:lol nothing of substance to say
:lol homeschool
:lol hasn't been lucid since the early 2000s
:lol shasta

[vy65]

What societal harm do feminists inflict?

What does "societal harm" mean and which feminists are you talking about?

Those videos discussed some pretty specific issues. Do you not see how those issues relate to societal harm?

[Blake]

Lol Joe Rogan

[vy65]

http://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Taylor-219x219.jpg

[Shastafarian]

Where'd he get offended? In the videos, dummy.


Only a Michael Sonmore type would equate posting J:lole R:lolgan Youtubes with resenting women. All dem drugs must've fried a circuit or two if you think criticizing SJW = hating women.:lol why exactly do you think I take drugs?




This is WC level of trite stupidity. "But but but ... they're stoopid because their stupid."

Noticeably absent from this post is any mention of

a) how fucked up university investigations of rape allegations are
b) how skewed our laws are directed against holding women accountable for making fake rape allegations
c) how little focus is paid on the rate of rape in prison vs. the relatively lower rate of rape in the general population
d) how poorly we deal with women who change their mind regarding consent after having had a couple of drinks with a guy
e) how many of the laws reflected in a)-e) constrain female agency -- something any feminist should oppose
f) how liberals ignore misogynistic attacks on women on the rate
g) how fucked up divorce laws with respect to men
Why don't you tell us about this some more then. Since this is your thread and you're trying to prove you're not scared of women.


Guess you shouldn't have smoked that bowl while watching them Youtubes, Shasta. Now you can go back to letting Jamal pound your woman while you feel proud of being a f:lolministAnd there it is. Accusing people of being cuckolds. I have a feeling this is a classic case of projection. Thankfully I've never been cuckolded. How about you?


:lol burnout
:lol feminism means cuckoldry
:lol nothing of substance to say
:lol homeschool
:lol hasn't been lucid since the early 2000s
:lol shasta

:lol meltdown

[Shastafarian]

What does "societal harm" mean and which feminists are you talking about? It's a very simple question with a huge scope of answers to choose from. I'm shocked you dodged it.


Those videos discussed some pretty specific issues. Do you not see how those issues relate to societal harm?No, please explain how feminists harm society.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol that list reads like "If I were a feminist this is what I would do."

The cliche is 'walk a mile in their shoes' not 'pretend they think just like you do.'

I think you're right Shasta. He must have mommy or ex issues.

[Clipper Nation]

What societal harm do feminists inflict?
Ask all the men who have been railroaded by a university kangaroo court and the court of public opinion because of a false rape accusation. Ask all the men who have been thrown in jail because of a false rape accusation. Ask all the men who have been taken to the cleaners in divorce court. Ask all the men who have seen their horrible ex-wife get custody of the kids because the woman almost always gets custody. Ask all the men who have literally been arrested for the high crime of "manspreading" on the subway, for fuck's sake. Third-wave feminism is misandry.

[Will Hunting]

What societal harm do feminists inflict?

Just a few:


This country's unhealthy obsession with which famous male politician/athlete/celebrity isn't married or might be cheating on his wife. The Clinton scandal, for example, would have never been blown out of proportion if not for feminism.
It can't be emphasized enough how retarded custody cases are. Even if the woman is a crazy bitch who tortures her children, it's still a huge uphill battle for the man to get custody.
The political correctness obsession we see is largely caused by feminism. It can be argued whether or not political correctness is a societal harm, but I view it as one.

[vy65]

It's a very simple question with a huge scope of answers to choose from. I'm shocked you dodged it.

It's a very broad and vague question. Why are you dodging clarifying it?

[vy65]

Lotta Michael Sonmore coming from the boognish and the burnout.

Sad that this country has reached a point where you can't criticize feminism without some faggot purse holder like the Vick crew accusing of projecting or having m:lolmmy issues

[vy65]

And why are all the "feminists" in this thread so afraid to talk about these issues? All they've said is "lol joe rogan" and "you hate women." Nothing said of substance at all. It's really quite sad.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol These white-knight cucks literally follow an ideology promoted by people who think they are "walking dildos" and "potential rapists," among other slurs, just for being male.

[Blake]

And why are all the "feminists" in this thread so afraid to talk about these issues? All they've said is "lol joe rogan" and "you hate women." Nothing said of substance at all. It's really quite sad.

Lol Joe Rogan

[vy65]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ba/ba0ee238740f2c7da79eb86997aa208e9eee63398bf33bf2df 7c6a77a895503a.jpg

[Winehole23]

Ask all the men who have been railroaded by a university kangaroo court and the court of public opinion because of a false rape accusation.How many people is that and how does "third-wave feminism" get the rap for lying accusers?


Ask all the men who have been thrown in jail because of a false rape accusation.Is this a prevalent or statistically significant problem? Why such a crybaby over convicted rapists?


Ask all the men who have been taken to the cleaners in divorce court. Ask all the men who have seen their horrible ex-wife get custody of the kids because the woman almost always gets custody.Paternalistic state laws are to blame here. Settled custom long before "third wave feminism." Woman takes the kids, man takes care of the woman. How is that distinctively feminist?


Ask all the men who have literally been arrested for the high crime of "manspreading" on the subway, for fuck's sake. Third-wave feminism is misandry.Can you give us some idea of the scope of this problem? Once again, seems you're strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.

[Blake]

Op needs the host of Fear Factor to articulate his thoughts for him

Lol Joe Rogan

[vy65]

How many people is that and how does "third-wave feminism" get the rap for lying accusers?

Is this a prevalent or statistically significant problem? Why such a crybaby over convicted rapists?

These are easily answered by simple google searches.


Specifically, in their analysis of sexual-assault cases at a large university, the authors found that 5.9 percent of cases were provably false. However, 44.9 percent cases “did not proceed” – meaning there was insufficient evidence, the accuser was uncooperative, or the incident did not meet the legal standard of assault. An additional 13.9 percent of cases could not be categorized due to lack of information. That leaves 35.3 percent of cases that led to formal charges or discipline against the accused. So there is obviously a lot of uncertainty here, a lot of he-said/she-said when allegations are filed. It would be a mistake to conclude, on the basis of the existing evidence, that nine out of ten assault claims are genuine.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416536/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine

Prevalent enough to be considered a social problem even though we don't have exact numbers, don't ya think?


Paternalistic state laws are to blame here. Settled custom long before "third wave feminism." Woman takes the kids, man takes care of the woman. How is that distinctively feminist?

Not with respect to alimony (but maybe with respect to child support). Do you have any evidence to back these claims up?

The point here is that so-called gender equality activists are notoriously silent in their demands for equality with respect to these divorce issues. What difference does their genesis make?

[vy65]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/f5/f5c75aee5fd99a249f9f96562b7cef19d61deafa9b59791bb3 82b9f317fdaacf.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

How many people is that and how does "third-wave feminism" get the rap for lying accusers?
Third-wave feminism has pushed the narrative of "listen and believe," in which the media and the justice system are pressured into not viewing accusations of rape with any skepticism at all. The "logic" behind this is that if rape was treated like any other crime, in which the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, female rape victims will be too intimidated to tell the police.

As a result, we have shit like the Duke lacrosse case, the Mattress Girl, and the Rolling Stone fake rape story, ruining people's lives forever on a mere accusation.


Is this a prevalent or statistically significant problem? Why such a crybaby over convicted rapists?
Who cares whether it's statistically significant? One innocent person in jail is too many in a civilized society. Why are you semen-shielding for injustice?


Paternalistic state laws are to blame here. Settled custom long before "third wave feminism." Woman takes the kids, man takes care of the woman. How is that distinctively feminist?
How is it NOT feminist to side with the woman 83% of the time regardless of the facts of the case? And even among the 17% of fathers who are awarded custody, only 40% are awarded support. And that small subset of fathers who get support are awarded less money on average than mothers.


Can you give us some idea of the scope of this problem? Once again, seems you're strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.
http://gothamist.com/2015/05/28/manspreading_crackdown.php

[Winehole23]

Prevalent enough to be considered a social problem even though we don't have exact numbers, don't ya think?perhaps. 7 out of one hundred provably false out of one hundred accusations versus 45 percent did not proceed. sounds like the inability of assault victims to find a a remedy in the court system far outweighs false accusations as a social problem.


Not with respect to alimony (but maybe with respect to child support). Do you have any evidence to back these claims up?To back what up? Putting kids with the mom as a default and making the man pay alimony is legal paternalism per se and the custom does predate third wave feminism. Just ask your father and grandfather.


The point here is that so-called gender equality activists are notoriously silent in their demands for equality with respect to these divorce issues. What difference does their genesis make?CN blamed legal paternalism in divorce proceedings on feminists. He was wrong. If you want to blame someone for the lack of gender equality in divorce and custody issues, blame the double standard and traditional family values.

[Clipper Nation]

BTW, by no means am I saying that all feminism is bad. The original feminists, such as Mott, Stanton, and Anthony, were brave pioneers who contributed greatly to the progress of society. Modern-day feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers still fight for true egalitarianism. It's the extremists of modern feminism (i.e. the Dworkins of the movement) who have co-opted the term to push a bigoted agenda.

[vy65]

perhaps. 7 out of one hundred provably false out of one hundred accusations versus 45 percent did not proceed. sounds like the inability of assault victims to find a a remedy in the court system far outweighs false accusations as a social problem.

Or the inability of the "victim" to back up her allegation with proof because it was a false allegation. Point is, we don't know. But CN's point is still valid -- we shouldn't tolerate even 1 false conviction. And this doesn't even get to the havoc wrought by the accusation of rape.


To back what up? Putting kids with the mom as a default and making the man pay alimony is legal paternalism per se and the custom does predate third wave feminism. Just ask your father and grandfather.

To back up your claim of alimony/custody being products of a paternalistic state.

This is besides the point anyway: regardless of where these laws emanate from, why aren't feminists, who's agenda is gender equality, calling for reform in these laws?


CN blamed legal paternalism in divorce proceedings on feminists. He was wrong. If you want to blame someone for the lack of gender equality in divorce and custody issues, blame the double standard and traditional family values.

I didn't see CN say feminists are the cause of divorce laws, don't know where you're getting that.

Again, if mainstream feminists were truly concerned with gender equality, why aren't they calling for reform in divorce laws in any meaningful frequency?

[Blake]

r8icWjwq3bY

Lol op letting this blowhard articulate for him

Lol op

[Winehole23]

Third-wave feminism has pushed the narrative of "listen and believe," in which the media and the justice system are pressured into not viewing accusations of rape with any skepticism at all. The "logic" behind this is that if rape was treated like any other crime, in which the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, female rape victims will be too intimidated to tell the police.Rape is treated like any other crime, the accused is innocent until proven guilty in court and victims are sometimes too intimidated to tell the police.


As a result, we have shit like the Duke lacrosse case, the Mattress Girl, and the Rolling Stone fake rape story, ruining people's lives forever on a mere accusation.I don't see the causation. You blame feminism, I blame clicktivism. (shrugs)



Who cares whether it's statistically significant? One innocent person in jail is too many in a civilized society. Why are you semen-shielding for injustice?Not at all. Just trying to get some idea of the scope of the problem. Your burning sense of social justice for men is commendable.



How is it NOT feminist to side with the woman 83% of the time regardless of the facts of the case? And even among the 17% of fathers who are awarded custody, only 40% are awarded support. And that small subset of fathers who get support are awarded less money on average than mothers.blame paternalism and the double standard. feminism didn't create that, it's a vestige of the time in the not too distant past when women were marriage cows.


http://gothamist.com/2015/05/28/manspreading_crackdown.php[/QUOTE]

[vy65]

Rape is treated like any other crime, the accused is innocent until proven guilty in court and victims are sometimes too intimidated to tell the police.

That's not true. For example, rape shield laws.

[Winehole23]

why aren't feminists, who's agenda is gender equality, calling for reform in these laws?dunno. why are you so certain they're not? bet you the answer is a click or two away if you're really so curious.

[vy65]

http://img3.owned.com/media/images/1/8/7/6/18763/it_wasn_t_in_his_original_recipe_540.jpg

[Winehole23]

That's not true. For example, rape shield laws.the accused is not presumed innocent in rape cases?

[vy65]

dunno. why are you so certain they're not?

Because there are "feminists" who don't care about gender equality and prefer to keep a legal system that allows them to clean men out during divorce.

[Winehole23]

also, why do you have a problem with not publicizing the names of accusers and forbidding scurrilous examinations of their sexual activities in court?

[Winehole23]

Because there are "feminists" who don't care about gender equality and prefer to keep a legal system that allows them to clean men out during divorce.vindictive bitches!

[vy65]

the accused is not presumed innocent in rape cases?

Of course. But a defendant's defense is still limited in other ways - i.e. rape shield laws - no?

[vy65]

also, why do you have a problem with not publicizing the names of accusers and forbidding scurrilous examinations of their sexual activities in court?

I don't care about publicizing their name.

I do think that victim's prior sexual history (off limits per rape shield laws) is highly relevant in rape cases. Don't you?

[Winehole23]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AJlaK1kkFX0/hqdefault.jpg

[vy65]

lol and here comes the deluge.

I had a higher opinion of you WH. Sad to see you fall to Blake's/FL's level

[Winehole23]

That's not what a rape shield law does. I don't care about publicizing their name.

I do think that victim's prior sexual history (off limits per rape shield laws) is highly relevant in rape cases. Don't you?necessarily? doubt it. why do you think so?

[Blake]

lol and here comes the deluge.

I had a higher opinion of you WH. Sad to see you fall to Blake's/FL's level

rofl says dude posting mentally challenged kid memes

[vy65]

necessarily? doubt it. why do you think so?

Because it goes to the "victim's" credibility -- core jury function.

[vy65]

http://img.memecdn.com/syndrome-of-a-down_c_840042.webp

[Winehole23]

seems like putting assault victims under oath and interrogating them about sexual activities unrelated to the alleged crime could have a chilling effect. isn't this why rape shield laws exist in the first place?

[Winehole23]

rofl says dude posting mentally challenged kid memeshe's disappointed I descended to his level.:cry

[vy65]

seems like putting assault victims under oath and interrogating them about sexual activities unrelated to the alleged crime could have a chilling effect. isn't this why rape shield laws exist in the first place?

I don't think so. We do the same thing with victim's non-sexual past crimes (fraud) to impugn their credibility.

[Blake]

he's disappointed I descended to his level.:cry

well his claim is that you're at my level. I've never posted a meme poking fun at handicapped kids so there's that.

Pretty low to make fun of mentally challenged kids, imo.

[Winehole23]

edgy and authentic, or merely straining to be offensive?

not a hard call, tbh

[Winehole23]

I don't think so. We do the same thing with victim's non-sexual past crimes (fraud) to impugn their credibility.lemme guess, you're a defense lawyer.

how do one's non-criminal, private and consensual sexual activities relate to credibility in a rape case. I'm not seeing the connection.

[vy65]

lemme guess, you're a defense lawyer.

how do one's non-criminal, private and consensual sexual activities relate to credibility in a rape case. I'm not seeing the connection.

What does my career have to do with anything?

You don't see a relationship between promiscuity and a victim's willingness (or lack thereof) to consent to sex?

[Winehole23]

at any rate, the traditional tactic of presenting the accuser as a slut to the jury has little conceivable bearing on a case of violent assault and rape, except as a cheap way to get the accused rapist off.

rape shield laws are pervasive, nearly universal in the US. why were they adopted?

was the legal system cowed by bitchy feminists?

[Winehole23]

What does my career have to do with anything?You don't see a relationship between promiscuity and a victim's willingness (or lack thereof) to consent to sex?nonconsensual sex is assault pure and simple. not sure how promiscuity relates to cases of forcible assault.

[Winehole23]

seems not germane to the question how often the victim said yes in the past if she says no now and gets raped.

[vy65]

was the legal system cowed by bitchy feminists?

Yes, absolutely. Rape Shield Laws rose to prominence in the 70s - is that just a coincidence?

Do you dispute rape crimes are treated differently than other felonies?

[vy65]

nonconsensual sex is assault pure and simple. not sure how promiscuity relates to cases of forcible assault.

Rape is assault yes.

It's also one of the few crimes where rules of evidence and constitutional protections are abrogated.

I can tell you don't see how promiscuity relates to rape.

[Blake]

not sure how promiscuity relates to cases of forcible assault.

It doesn't. Or it shouldn't.

[vy65]

seems not germane to the question how often the victim said yes in the past if she says no now and gets raped.

Why is a witnesses past conviction for fraud germane to his credibility as a witness?

[Winehole23]

Yes, absolutely. Rape Shield Laws rose to prominence in the 70s - is that just a coincidence?Probably not. Dunno. As gross simplifications go that seems roughly accurate. Not sure that's tantamount to the legal system being cowed so much as seeing the broader interests of justice being served, but i know we'll not agree on this.


Do you dispute rape crimes are treated differently than other felonies?Nope.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is a witnesses past conviction for fraud germane to his credibility as a witness?

:lol There is a relationship between terpitude and deception/recidivism sure but you begging the question about a similar link here isn't an argument, counselor crayola.

[Winehole23]

Why is a witnesses past conviction for fraud germane to his credibility as a witness?promiscuity isn't fraud.

[vy65]

Dershowitz argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally barred admission of evidence that would have acquitted Tyson: allegations that his accuser, a nineteen-year-old woman, had previously falsely accused another man of rape to avoid angering her father about her sexual activity. Because such evidence related to the victim's past sexual history, it was ruled inadmissible.

Clearly not relevant to the crime charged, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's funny the legal standard that I see used in court decisions I read over and over again is that it's not enough that there is a similarity or difference but instead how such a difference or similarity would cause a different or the same result is key. I see judges rule against simply laying out the simple difference/similar again and again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Clearly not relevant to the crime charged, right?

Good job, crayola. Maybe sometime soon we will see a complete argument.

[Winehole23]

Clearly not relevant to the crime charged, right?Judges have the discretion to allow or disallow evidence, for better and for worse.

[Winehole23]

why an accuser's promiscuity per se should be fair game in rape cases, as you've suggested, still isn't clear.

[vy65]

Judges have the discretion to allow or disallow evidence, for better and for worse.

The 6th amendment isn't discretionary

[vy65]

why an accuser's promiscuity per se should be fair game in rape cases, as you've suggested, still isn't clear.

If there's a question about consent, how readily she does or does not consent to sex is something the jury should know.

[vy65]

Judges have the discretion to allow or disallow evidence, for better and for worse.

So you're ok with the inability to pry into an accuser's prior false accusations in rape cases? Why's that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The 6th amendment isn't discretionary

The notion that the previous case speaks to the "nature of the accuser" demonstrates quite clearly how it is prejudicial. At best you have a conflict between what you claim and an impartial jury. Perhaps if you could substantiate how in that particular case the differences would have made meaningful difference. All you do is beg the question. You of course are speaking from a position of gross ignorance to the facts of any of the cases.

I just see you being vicariously threatened really.

[Winehole23]

If there's a question about consent, how readily she does or does not consent to sex is something the jury should know.I don't buy it, but I can see why you argue for it -- easier for you to paint the accuser as a slut and get the jury to ignore evidence of rape.

[vy65]

I don't buy it

No surprise there.

You still haven't answered the question: are you ok with excluding evidence of an accuser's prior false accusations?

[Winehole23]

no, but in the case you cited it sounded like the judge had the discretion to admit it, so i don't see what the problem is other than you didn't like the result.

[vy65]

So you agree that rape isn't treated like other crimes, and you're ok with depriving defendants of their constitutional right to put on a full defense. Noted.

[vy65]

That a ruling is "discretionary" doesn't mean that it's constitutional.

[Blake]

If there's a question about consent, how readily she does or does not consent to sex is something the jury should know.

Bullshit.

[Winehole23]

That a ruling is "discretionary" doesn't mean that it's constitutional.absolutely agree.

[Winehole23]

So you agree that rape isn't treated like other crimes, and you're ok with depriving defendants of their constitutional right to put on a full defense.if by putting on a full defense you mean presenting prejudicial evidence unrelated to the alleged crime, yeah, I think it's ok for judges to bar that. it's always been ok for judges to do that. it's one of the things they're supposed to do.

[vy65]

if by putting on a full defense you mean presenting prejudicial evidence unrelated to the alleged crime, yeah, I think it's ok for judges to bar that. it's always been ok for judges to do that. it's one of the things they're supposed to do.

That's not what's going on. Rape Shield Laws render inadmissible evidence of the accuser's prior false allegations of rape. We routinely do the same thing when the accuser has been accused of prior turpitude (fraud). Apparently, you lose your right to put on a defense when you're accused of rape.

[vy65]

absolutely agree.

And I don't think the judge's decision was discretionary; from what I've read, his hand was forced per the rape shield statute.

[InRareForm]

so the joe rogan thread going to go 100 pages and set political forum records? :lol

[vy65]

if by putting on a full defense you mean presenting prejudicial evidence unrelated to the alleged crime, yeah, I think it's ok for judges to bar that. it's always been ok for judges to do that. it's one of the things they're supposed to do.

Prior false rape allegations have no relevance to a case involving rape allegations? That says nothing about the accuser's credibility? Doesn't the accused have a constitutional right to confrontation, including the right to get into the accuser's prior attempts of "crying wolf?" Or other evidence of motive to lie?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds to me like Counselor Crayola's standard is if a girl is promiscuous or lies about her sexual encounters to her parents then she should get what's coming to her. He would fit right in over in India and the Middle East.

So vy do you date dishrags, do you dissemble and lie to your girlfriends, or do you abstain?

[Winehole23]

That's not what's going on. Rape Shield Laws render inadmissible evidence of the accuser's prior false allegations of rape. We routinely do the same thing when the accuser has been accused of prior turpitude (fraud). Apparently, you lose your right to put on a defense when you're accused of rape.I won't take your word for it, especially since you sound less than convinced about your own example.

[vy65]

I won't take your word for it, especially since you sound less than convinced about your own example.

feel free to prove me wrong

[vy65]

I'm all ears, WH ...

[Winehole23]

burden is yours to make your own points.

feel free to prove your own point about promiscuity per se being germane to rape trials. I'm all ears.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

vy doesn't want to discuss the prejudices that rape shield laws are intended to protect victims from. I also know that judicial review is not so cut and dried and oversimplified. But reductio ad absurdum and posturing with "prove me wrong!" sure has me convinced.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's supposed to be a lawyer though and he makes arguments like that repeatedly. I can beg questions too.

[Blake]

feel free to prove me wrong

lol burden of proof.

You're a terrible lawyer.

[Blake]

If there's a question about consent, how readily she does or does not consent to sex is something the jury should know.

If you believe in a fair trial, this post is horribly and laughably wrong. Only a slimy defense attorney would try to drag an accuser's sex life into the courtroom.

[vy65]

burden is yours to make your own points.

Burden was met. The law disallows admission of evidence showing the accuser made prior false rape accusations. I don't know what you're not convinced of, but technically, the burden's now yours to come up with something to refute. You seem to continue avoiding this point. Why's that?


feel free to prove your own point about promiscuity per se being germane to rape trials. I'm all ears.

As for the issue of promiscuity, evidence of how the accuser "consents" to sex is highly relevant when the whole issue is whether consent was lacking. Disallowing this evidence is particularly troublesome in those jurisdictions where the accused can't even offer evidence of his prior sexual history with the accuser.

[vy65]

Funny that Blake and Fuzzy can take the time to type whilst 69'ing each other.

:cry vy you so dumb :cry comments hurt so much

[Blake]

:cry

[vy65]

vy doesn't want to discuss the prejudices that rape shield laws are intended to protect victims from. I also know that judicial review is not so cut and dried and oversimplified. But reductio ad absurdum and posturing with "prove me wrong!" sure has me convinced.

You use a lot of words here. But you've said absolutely nothing.

[vy65]

Another poignant and beautifully articulated response from Blake. Bravo.

[Blake]

Another poignant and beautifully articulated response from Blake. Bravo.

Says dude that has Joe Rogan speak for him.

[vy65]

Srsly, Blake has spent a good 4 pages of this thread to saying lol joe rogan and vy you so dumb. You'd think someone with nothing substantive to contribute would have better things to do with his time, no?

[Blake]

Srsly, Blake has spent a good 4 pages of this thread to saying lol joe rogan and vy you so dumb. You'd think someone with nothing substantive to contribute would have better things to do with his time, no?

Srsly, I'm just here to lol at your dumb posts. But good use of your time sucking on Joe Rogan's teets

[vy65]

Says dude that has Joe Rogan speak for him.

Where'd he speak for me? I posted some clips from his podcast for discussion purposes. A discussion happened. Just because you're too stupid to add anything doesn't mean J:lole R:lolgan "spoke" for me.

[vy65]

Srsly, I'm just here to lol at your dumb posts.


You'd think someone with nothing substantive to contribute would have better things to do with his time, no?

[vy65]

Unless of course Blake loves the tidal waves of cuck comments that gets hurled his way? Food for thought ...

[Blake]

Says dude that's replying to every single one of my lol posts

[Blake]

Unless of course Blake loves the tidal waves of cuck comments that gets hurled his way? Food for thought ...

I think you love to call me a cuck so I'm not gonna stop you or anyone else from stooping that low. I usually see that as a cue that your adult talk is done

[vy65]

adult talk

Coming from the guy who's had none ITT, that means alot

[vy65]

Says dude that's replying to every single one of my lol posts

Says the dude who's daily and only contribution is J:lole R:lolgan. Seriously, do you have nothing better to do?

[Clipper Nation]

Lol Joe Rogan


Op needs the host of Fear Factor to articulate his thoughts for him

Lol Joe Rogan
"adult talk"

[Blake]

Coming from the guy who's had none ITT, that means alot

Actually I have

[Blake]

Says the dude who's daily and only contribution is J:lole R:lolgan. Seriously, do you have nothing better to do?

seriously, do you have nothing better to do than whine about my lols?

[Blake]

"adult talk"

I'm don't really care.

Vy cares right after posting his down syndrome memes tho.

[vy65]

Actually I have

Actually, you haven't.

[vy65]

seriously, do you have nothing better to do than whine about my lols?

I do. I've contributed to the thread.

Just trying to shut the idiots up out so the "adults" can have a discussion.

[vy65]

I'm don't really care.

"Adult talk"

[Blake]

I do. I've contributed to the thread.

Just trying to shut the idiots up out so the "adults" can have a discussion.

you've also contributed to thread with down syndrome memes.

Seriously did you not have anything better to do instead of mock people with down syndrome? Seriously?

[Blake]

"Adult talk"

I'm not the one whining, son.

:cry stooping to Blake's level :cry

[Blake]

Actually, you haven't.

Actually I did. I destroyed one of your lousy legal opinions.

[Clipper Nation]

seriously, do you have nothing better to do than whine about my lols?
More adult cuck, I mean, talk.

[vy65]

If there's a question about consent, how readily she does or does not consent to sex is something the jury should know.


Bullshit.


Actually I did. I destroyed one of your lousy legal opinions.

destr:lolyed

[vy65]

Lotsa deflection going on in this thread.

So far, there's been absolutely zero defense of statutes which exclude evidence of an accuser's prior false rape accusations -- evidence which is routinely admissible and highly relevant in any other case. Having tried several cases, juries routinely base their verdicts on credibility determinations -- they're voting with their hearts on who they "believe" more 9 times out of 10. Keeping this sort of evidence out not only raises serious constitutional issues, it prevents a defendant from having a fair trial.

Also, there's been zero defense of the exclusion on evidence prior sexual history -- evidence which is highly relevant to the question of consent, to whether the accused's alleged assault was knowing or not, and can show a course of conduct where the accused and the victim have a past sexual history. All of which is highly probative. You can complain about putting the victim on trial -- but if she's a slut, but legitimately was raped, juries are smart enough to separate one's past from the crime they're evaluating. However, if she's a slut, and her slutiness makes her non-consent blurry, that's fair game.

[vy65]

If you believe in a fair trial, this post is horribly and laughably wrong. Only a slimy defense attorney would try to drag an accuser's sex life into the courtroom.

If you're capable of engaging in "adult talk," prove it.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend have been dating for a year. Sometimes they have rough sex. Girlfriend enjoys it when Boyfriend "takes her against her will." They've had aggressive sex where this scenario plays out several times. The relationship goes forward with no problems. Girlfriend then catches Boyfriend cheating on her (or she gets angry at him for any other reason, take your pick). Girlfriend and Boyfriend have aggressive/rough sex, just like they always have. The following week, Boyfriend gets arrested for rape. Should the couple's past sexual history be excluded from evidence?

[Winehole23]

Should the couple's past sexual history be excluded from evidence?that's what we have judges for: to determine what is germane to the legal questions and what is gratuitously prejudicial. your opinion, thinly supported as it is here, that judges have their hands completely tied, is no doubt overstated.

[vy65]

that's what we have judges for: to determine what is germane to the legal questions and what is gratuitously prejudicial. your opinion, thinly supported as it is here, that judges have their hands completely tied, is no doubt overstated.

In some state's, they do.

Do you have any proof of your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion that judge's hands are tied is overstated, counselor?

[vy65]

So far, there's been absolutely zero defense of statutes which exclude evidence of an accuser's prior false rape accusations -- evidence which is routinely admissible and highly relevant in any other case. Having tried several cases, juries routinely base their verdicts on credibility determinations -- they're voting with their hearts on who they "believe" more 9 times out of 10. Keeping this sort of evidence out not only raises serious constitutional issues, it prevents a defendant from having a fair trial.

Still waiting on your response to this WH

[ElNono]

Lotsa deflection going on in this thread.

So far, there's been absolutely zero defense of statutes which exclude evidence of an accuser's prior false rape accusations -- evidence which is routinely admissible and highly relevant in any other case. Having tried several cases, juries routinely base their verdicts on credibility determinations -- they're voting with their hearts on who they "believe" more 9 times out of 10. Keeping this sort of evidence out not only raises serious constitutional issues, it prevents a defendant from having a fair trial.

Also, there's been zero defense of the exclusion on evidence prior sexual history -- evidence which is highly relevant to the question of consent, to whether the accused's alleged assault was knowing or not, and can show a course of conduct where the accused and the victim have a past sexual history. All of which is highly probative. You can complain about putting the victim on trial -- but if she's a slut, but legitimately was raped, juries are smart enough to separate one's past from the crime they're evaluating. However, if she's a slut, and her slutiness makes her non-consent blurry, that's fair game.

My understanding is that you can bring in this evidence either under the 400 rules (character) or 600 rules (credibility), then it's up to the judge to establish if it can be used or not (as any other evidence).

Cases where prior false rape accusations were allowed to be introduced as evidence include:
United States v. Stamper, 766 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (W.D. N.C. 1991) (false rape accusations go to the motive or bias of the complainant);
Phillips v. State, 545 So. 2d 221, 223 (Ala. Crim. App.1989) (evidence of prior false allegations was admissible as exposing victim's corrupt state of mind);
People v. Hurlburt, 333 P.2d 82, 86-87 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (false rape allegations are admissible as showing the complainant's animosity towards the defendant);
People v. McClure, 356 N.E.2d 899, 901 (1l. App. Ct. 1976) (since false rape allegations concerned motivation in bringing current charge, evidence of these false charges should have been admitted);
State v. Anderson, 686 P.2d 193,198-201 (Mont. 1984) (evidence of prior false rape accusations should be admitted as probative of the state of mind of the complainant)

This was mostly all lifted from here, which is a good read:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=jleg

Now, all of those cases predate the Federal Rape shield law (1994). But let's not pretend that's some new feminist wave. Almost all jurisdictions had similar rape shield statutes by the mid 70s.

FWIW, for a case post-Federal Rape shield law, check out: People v. Jovanovic, 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You use a lot of words here. But you've said absolutely nothing.

you apologize for rapists. for the most part outside of the regular Counselor Crayola schtick I have argued on merit. I'm addressing what you are saying directly. You dissembled into this semi coherent whine since I've been gone. Good job, Crayola.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still waiting on your response to this WH

All I can think of when I read it is that it is the rationalizations that you tell your client when you lose.

If you cannot find jurors that find the proper significance of the court's instructions or that can grasp the legal standard then that is on you just as much as it was for your failure to make a compelling case. Hearguessing the juror's intent after the fact is very laughable. This is doubly hilarious in light of your very own obvious personal bias.

Fact is that there are well defined historical prejudices against women as relates to sex and a standard for review to protect victims of sex crimes from people like you.