Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo?
A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…
Posts
Read-only
Total:
418
Lets ask AI again:
"Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo?"
AI responds:
"It's important to approach this question with sensitivity and respect for others.
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and feelings, but it's crucial to recognize and respect boundaries and societal norms.
Living alone and not having been in a romantic relationship does not necessarily make someone a "weirdo."
People have different life experiences and circumstances that shape their social interactions and relationships.
It's important to avoid making assumptions or judgments based on limited information.
However, if someone is fixated on inappropriate or harmful thoughts involving minors, such as imagining little Catholic boys in a disturbing way, it is essential to recognize that this is not acceptable behavior.
Such thoughts can be concerning and may indicate a need for professional help, such as therapy or counseling, to address any underlying issues and ensure the safety and well-being of oneself and others.
If you or someone you know is struggling with such thoughts or feelings, it is recommended to reach out to a mental health professional who can provide guidance and support in navigating these challenges."
-->
@Best.Korea
I didnt know that you were gay.
He is a 50 something year old man who lives alone and has never been with a woman. What did you think, he is just socially awkward?
-->
@Double_R
There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.No one is arguing that Trump does not have the right to assert his innocence
No one is admitting to arguing that. That doesn't mean no one is arguing that.
If you remove Trump's statements asserting his innocence and his statements pointing out the lack of evidence against him all that are left are matters of public interest, statements of opinions, and as you said insults and belittlements (which are not defamatory since forever).
and the case is not about whether he called her a liar.
Fine, strike them, I'll remind you if you ever deign to actually give a list of so called defamatory statements.
I would explain what it's about, but that's what we've been talking about for days now.
I sense someone putting on a parachute.
I cut it off because it is just gibberish nonsense.
Uh huh, but remember this:
[ADOL] To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.[Double_R] Of course you are, because you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do.
If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.Ok, we'll do the mint analogy.Biden took one mint. Hell, we'll say he took two. Trump took an entire bag.
Trust the FBI, of course you're not allowed to count them yourself!
The restaurant didn't even notice the two mints were missing, they noticed the missing bag though.
Biden runs the restaurant when they noticed....
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.
After sending the waiters...
When the waiters caught up to Trump, not only lied about having them, he had his date hide them in her purse and also tell the waiters she never saw them.
More like he told his date to handle it, the date gave them one, he said "there you go, now fuck off", and then they smashed the car windows to search the car and found another one.
Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.
He was claiming that all along. Also Obama agrees. Also every other manager has taken mints.
If Trump really believed the mints were his he would have never lied about having them and tried to hide them in the first place.
That's TDS that can't be sorted out here. Focus on the core claim: That he's not allowed to take the mints. If that is true, then it is also true of Biden.
These are not the same thing.
You're pretending they're not because you're assuming intent matters and then assuming that anyone has in anyway proven Trump's intent was pure and Biden's was not. A lot like pressuring Ukraine. Quid pro quos are fine if your heart is in the right place (that place is apparently the CIA).
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat.The link is 44 pages long. Not sifting through it to figure out what your point is. Make it by typing words and I'll be happy to dig into it.
I only posted the link so you could confirm. The quote is right there. "After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents."
The deep magic you're looking for is Ctrl-F.
You continue to pretend this is a black or white issue, as if you're either a public figure or you're not, and all public figures are exactly the same. That's silly.
So it's a continuous variable from 0 to 1, and only people who you approve of get to cherry pick which legal standard to use where. How convenient.
Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.And yet no one in the public seemed to be concerned about this until Trump played right into it.
Doesn't matter if nobody bought it or read it. She made it a public issue by publishing. Lookup the roots of the words public and publish. Just like any tweet is public even if nobody reads it until someone famous responds.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversiesShe obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does.That's why I put "forefront" in italics. Anyone can accuse someone, that doesn't mean anyone else will care.
That might be an argument for why Trump's reputation wasn't harmed. Not why EJC is not putting her reputation on the line by attempting to create a public controversy.
I could repeat this point a hundred times and you will continue to respond as if I never made it or as if this point is not relevant when it absolutely is.
Well you are correct that repetition won't change my mind.
NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE.
I WOULDN'T CARE IF THAT WAS TRUE. She accused him of rape. She accused a former president of rape. Publicly. That's a public controversy. A controversy, that is public. She featured prominently in this controversy (being the sole supposed witness). Thus she featured prominently in a public controversy.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.lol ok bro. Trump spent the whole republican convention in 2016 feuding with a gold star family because they criticized him. The man has deep insecurity issues.
No seriously, if nobody brought that book to his attention he wouldn't have known to attack her. In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation.
This isn't defamation because (among other reasons) it would violate the 1st amendment if it was. There is no contradiction, you and the fake court are just nuts.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.And yet again... Everyone in our society already had an opinion of OJ Simpson. There is almost nothing that a single person on planet earth could have said about him that could have caused him significant reputational harm, so to assert that the mere suggestion that he was guilty - something even most people in his own inner circle had already figured out - would have been a case for defamation is beyond stupid.
It would be stupid, but your theory of defamation is also stupid so it makes stupid predictions.
Public figures can still be sued for defamation if there is actual malice (the legal meaning). You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.
Therefore anyone who claimed Simpson was guilty would be doing it with actual malice because they were contradicting a jury verdict.
[Best.Korea] Lets ask AI again:However, if someone is fixated on inappropriate or harmful thoughts involving minors, such as imagining little Catholic boys in a disturbing way, it is essential to recognize that this is not acceptable behavior.
I had a horrible thought. What if Best.Korea is such a clueless idiot that he went and asked a public API this stuff with his real IP?
What if they get a warrant and he's connecting to this site without a proxy? Then they'd see his pedo apologetics.
Would it be poetic justice for him to be put on a watch-list because he was brazenly reveling in slander?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is Darwin's law in action. No need to act surprised.
What if Best.Korea is such a clueless idiot that he went and asked a public API this stuff with his real IP?
You think asking questions isnt allowed.
Asking questions is allowed.
Maybe your parents hit you on the head when you asked them questions?
What if they get a warrant and he's connecting to this site without a proxy? Then they'd see his pedo apologetics.
Debating about these topics is allowed too.
Would it be poetic justice for him to be put on a watch-list because he was brazenly reveling in slander?
One would think that a person promoting civil wars, supporting Putin and insulting rape victims would sooner end up on a watch list than someone who asked a question.
You are probably already on some watch list.
OwO
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Imagine thinking it's safe to just ask any old question under this current administration. Ah, the joys of bliss.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People are allowed to disagree and question your credibility.
No one here is claiming otherwise. I don't know why you keep repeating arguments that are not in dispute.
Now, explain to me why you think the following person exists: Someone who believes Donald Trump is capable of sexual assault, who didn't know about EJC, but after Trump called her a liar, thought less of EJC.You claimed that damage to reputation was a necessary condition of defamation and further implied that if people's minds were already made up there was no damage to be done. Square the round peg please.
The existence of the person you imagined is irrelevant to this case. The trial was about the harm caused to EJC. Whether any harm was caused to Trump is an entirely sperate matter. The reason we keep discussing it is because you keep trying to equivocate between the two so I have to keep explaining to you how they are different.
The person people's minds were already made up about was Trump, that's why he is nearly impossible to defame. People's minds were not made up about EJC as most people had never even heard of her. That's why she is relatively easy to defame.
Do you understand?
I see Trump's error now. He should have called all the people who accused him of rape liars regardless of whether they wrote books and went on TV.
No, you don't see the error. I don't know why those is so hard for you.
Whether he called anyone else a liar is irrelevant. His error was going beyond calling EJC a liar. And when he did, he was being reckless with the truth and acted with actual malice which caused her reputational harm.
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine thinking it's safe to just ask any old question under this current administration
No, imagine this:
You live in a fear of "them",
who you think are really in power,
and you think Trump and Putin are fighting "them"
which makes you support Trump and Putin
and worship them as liberators.
-->
@Double_R
The person people's minds were already made up about was Trump, that's why he is nearly impossible to defame. People's minds were not made up about EJC as most people had never even heard of her. That's why she is relatively easy to defame.Do you understand?
So you must think a world exists where most people believe Trump is a sexual predator, but suddenly those same people forget all about that and believe every word Trump says as soon as the name E.J Carroll is spoken... square peg meet round hole.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you remove Trump's statements asserting his innocence and his statements pointing out the lack of evidence against him all that are left are matters of public interest, statements of opinions, and as you said insults and belittlements (which are not defamatory since forever).
I already presented you the elements of defamation, that is how you evaluate whether it occurred. This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.
Communication involves context. You need the full picture in order to understand what message has been conveyed. You can disagree with that all you want, the rest of the world will continue to understand it, and I think, so will you in any other situation in real life.
So it's a continuous variable from 0 to 1, and only people who you approve of get to cherry pick which legal standard to use where.
There is a scale to how notorious a person is within any given society. 0 and 1 are not the only options.
Where a person is on that scale directly impacts how easily their reputation can be harmed by someone else's statements. It also impacts how easily a person can harm the reputation of others.
I don't get to decide who determines who makes the decision. We have a legal process to determine that.
These are all basic facts. I'm sorry if they are too difficult for you to grasp.
Doesn't matter if nobody bought it or read it. She made it a public issue by publishing. Lookup the roots of the words public and publish.
Look up the word "issue". It is by definition, not an issue if people do not care about it.
NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE.I WOULDN'T CARE IF THAT WAS TRUE. She accused him of rape. She accused a former president of rape. Publicly. That's a public controversy.
You should care if my point is true, because if so that means it is by definition, not a public controversy.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation.This isn't defamation because (among other reasons) it would violate the 1st amendment if it was. There is no contradiction, you and the fake court are just nuts.
What's nuts is to live in a country where people are sued for defamation all the time and still claim that the 1st amendment of our constitution protects one from being sued for defamation. Apparently every lawyer, every judge, and every constitutional scholar through our 200+ year history all got it wrong, but not you, being the genius that you are you figured it all out.
In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.
Strawman as usual. Not only have I never asserted or argued that he has no right to deny it, I have explained repeatedly that he does. Learn to read.
You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.
Yet anther strawman. *Yawn*
Defamation requires among other elements, the intentional distortion of a fact. If the central fact of the defamation dispute is itself in dispute, the only logical next step is to adjudicate the facts and proceed from there.
That's what they did, because it's common sense.
-->
@Greyparrot
So you must think a world exists where most people believe Trump is a sexual predator, but suddenly those same people forget all about that and believe every word Trump says as soon as the name E.J Carroll is spoken... square peg meet round hole.
Many people out there believe Trump is a sexual predator. That is a fact.
Many people out there believe whatever Donald Trump says. That's a fact.
Nothing about anything I've said suggests there is significant overlap between these two groups of people, it's not even part of the conversation. What is it about you that is so incapable of understanding opposing arguments?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.After sending the waiters...
There is no evidence whatsoever that Biden had any involvement in this.
Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.He was claiming that all along.
Then he had no reason to lie about having them.
That's TDS that can't be sorted out here. Focus on the core claim: That he's not allowed to take the mints. If that is true, then it is also true of Biden.
That's not the core claim, that's the claim you want to focus on because it's a distraction from what the case is actually about. As long as you can keep the attention here, we don't get to talk about the crimes Trump actually committed.
Again, Trump is not being charged because he had possession of documents. He is being charged for his attempts to hold onto those documents after being notified that he had to give them back.
You're pretending they're not because you're assuming intent matters and then assuming that anyone has in anyway proven Trump's intent was pure and Biden's was not.
Uh, yeah genius, intent does matter. That's how the law works, has always worked, and will always work because that's common sense.
We do not hold the guy who forgot to pay for the paper towel at the bottom of his cart accountable in the same way he hold the guy who shoved a t-shirt down his pants and snuck by the security guard.
Trump demonstrated his unlawful intentions when he lied to investigators, when he had his people move boxes from one location to another to evade detention, when he instructed his IT guy to delete video footage, etc. Biden demonstrated his intent when he handed the documents back to the FBI that they were not even asking for.
This is really simple stuff.
I only posted the link so you could confirm. The quote is right there. "After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents."
Correct, he is not. So when he was told to give them back, he should have given them back. We wouldn't be having this conversation if he did.
What if Best.Korea is such a clueless idiot that he went and asked a public API this stuff with his real IP?[Best.Korea] You think asking questions isnt allowed.Asking questions is allowed.
Your clueless idiot act is rock solid.
So you must think a world exists where most people believe Trump is a sexual predator,
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy."
In the 2005 recording obtained by NBC News from Access Hollywood, Trump, then newly married to Melania Trump, spots a young woman through a bus window while in conversation with Billy Bush, at the time an anchor for Access Hollywood, and others.
"Whoa, whoa," he said to Bush about the woman’s appearance. “I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her."
"Whoa, whoa," he said to Bush about the woman’s appearance. “I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her."
-->
@Double_R
This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.
If instances add linearly then that is exactly how logic works. If the function is exponential but every element in the array is zero, the result is still zero. If you are claiming that the output depends on a series of necessary but not sufficient conditions you need to justify their chain causality.
Communication involves context. You need the full picture in order to understand what message has been conveyed. You can disagree with that all you want, the rest of the world will continue to understand it, and I think, so will you in any other situation in real life.
"bla bla bla" = "I shouldn't have to explain because I can't explain"
We have a legal process to determine that.
Sure, until the right-tribe starts playing the game. Then you'll start complaining about prejudiced juries and stacked courts.
These are all basic facts. I'm sorry if they are too difficult for you to grasp.
So kind of you to feel sorry for me lol
You should care if my point is true, because if so that means it is by definition, not a public controversy.
"public" is not qualified by readership but by the involvement of people and matters of public interest and the act of publishing.
If a tweet has one reader, it is still public and if it creates a controversy when discovered by the public (regardless of who may have drawn eyes to it) it is a public controversy.
If I tweet that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden gang raped me, I just created a public controversy even if nobody ever reads it. In fact I don't even have to be the supposed victim. If I said Joe Biden and Hunter Biden gang raped somebody else it's still a public controversy and I am still a prominent figure in that controversy as the originator of the published claim. Joe and Hunter would have every right to call me a liar. In fact private citizens with no involvement or notoriety would also have the right to call me a liar. Even if 4 West Virginians said my claim was true (based on my word).
What's nuts is to live in a country where people are sued for defamation all the time and still claim that the 1st amendment of our constitution protects one from being sued for defamation.
Nothing protects you from getting sued, but it does limit the scope of what can be defamation. So the false defamation claims are dismissed quickly provided you have a real judge instead of a TDS pseudo-judge.
Apparently every lawyer
Legal Eagle isn't "every lawyer"
You want some counter examples? Trumps Lawyer. Alan Dershowitz. Robert Gouveia.
every constitutional scholar through our 200+ year history all got it wrong
I could recall all the debates you've lost on appeals to authority, but in this case I don't have to. You're just spittin delusions. That's why you can't find any precedents.
In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.Strawman as usual. Not only have I never asserted or argued that he has no right to deny it, I have explained repeatedly that he does. Learn to read.
Great, then it doesn't matter how popular the accusation is does it.
You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.Yet anther strawman. *Yawn*
If that's a strawman that you are not asserting that contradicting a jury proves malice. Noted as exhibit (B).
Exhibit (A) is you saying "and the case is not about whether he called her a liar.
So he has a right to deny accusations. The issue is not calling her a liar. Contradicting a jury finding of fact does not prove actual malice.
I am eager to see you list the statements you are claiming are defamatory.
Nothing about anything I've said suggests there is significant overlap between these two groups of people
You said "everyone" knows Trump is a sexual predator. If "everyone" knew then there wouldn't be a group of people who didn't know.
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.After sending the waiters...There is no evidence whatsoever that Biden had any involvement in this.
Something changed, because people have been taking mints since the restaurant opened. Never once has anyone asked for them back.
Then he had no reason to lie about having them.
Whether he did or didn't lie is irrelevant to my point. It's not a false equivalence since the claim is that he stole them.
What you are reduced to saying (if you insanely maintain that Trump was not authorized) is that Biden stole them, but he's too stupid to know he stole them until he sees someone else getting beaten up over doing the same thing.
Not a false equivalence then, in fact it proves the point nicely: Biden stole them first, nobody beat him up.
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would agree with GP and ADOL here that the statements made were pretty weak and I wouldn't consider it defamation if I was on that jury, but I wasn't so I couldn't change the outcome. I think it was a long stretch for the jury to say that those statements alone were the defamatory remarks considering what has been said by others about other people.
It's important when evaluating statements in the context of a defamation claim that we're looking at whether the elements here were met. The idea of defamation is not that you're not allowed to say mean things about someone else. It's that you're not allowed to cause someone else significant reputational harm by recklessly lying about them in a pubic setting with actual malice. It's a fairly non controversial idea.
When looking at Trump's statements, he did just that. Setting aside his claims that she was lying, he went further by painting her as some kind of Democratic operative which was completely unfounded, and he certainly caused her reputational harm by repeatedly and relentlessly attacking her from the bully pulpit on the United States presidency. All of that matters because the size of your microphone and the repetition play into pubic perception about you, not to mention how many death threats you end up getting.
All of this is not to say there were no issues with the trial, verdict, or even the law itself. I feel like they got it right here but am certainly open to arguments to the contrary. What I'm really responding to in this thread is the absurdity of ADOL and which to some extent seems co-signed by GP that the trial itself was illegal, the jury was some kind of rogue authoritarian group who decided to place their own political desires ahead of their oath to uphold the law, that the people of NY should no longer be considered fellow American citizens, and that he would literally kill to prevent a single dime of Trump's money being seized to pay this award.
You can disagree with the verdict all you want, you can't pretend you're defending the rule of law when the only outcome you are willing to recognize as legally legitimate is the one you personally approve of.
-->
@FLRW
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy."
This is the guy who is a champion of Christianity and family values?
-->
@Double_R
Trump was mean and she took advantage of the opportunity. She made off like a bandit.
I suppose it's debatable if her posting her rape allegation in a book would make her a public figure also, but honestly, I don't know the laws on that.
-->
@Best.Korea
This is the guy who is a champion of Christianity and family values?
Who said this?
-->
@Double_R
you can't pretend you're defending the rule of law when the only outcome you are willing to recognize as legally legitimate is the one you personally approve of.
Two sets, one wider and encompassing:
A: All outcomes I personally disapprove of.
B: All outcomes which contradict all precedent, hundreds of years of jurisprudence, won't be applied to anyone but enemies of the state, violate the constitution, and imply a society completely locked down by censorship as long as you can find 4 people to agree with the censorship anywhere, require a state of dangerous delusion to support, and are aimed at chilling opposition to the state.
All B are within A, but not all A are B.
-->
@Best.Korea
Trump is the New Jesus ! All the Evangelicals voted for him in Iowa.
A notable fact in 2016 was that exit polls showed about 80% of white evangelical Christians supported Trump in spite of his unfamiliarity with the Bible, his divorces, his vulgar rhetoric and his association with porn stars. Trump's reputation in moral terms hasn't changed all that much during his time in office, but there is little evidence of slippage among these faith voters.
Isn't this proof that God does not exist?
-->
@DavidAZZ
I suppose it's debatable if her posting her rape allegation in a book would make her a public figure also, but honestly, I don't know the laws on that.
There are no laws on that, just inference from precedent. There is plenty of precedent that would tell us if Trump could sue EJC for accusing him of rape in a book. Almost nothing about whether you can accuse someone of a serious crime and then sue them when they deny it. As far as I can tell no court in all history has been deranged enough to entertain such a notion.
No law guides mention those petty dismissals thinking that nothing so absurd is interesting enough to study.
It doesn't matter though because Double R asserts that Trump had actual malice which would mean he could be sued even if EJC was a public figure.
-->
@FLRW
All the Evangelicals voted for him in Iowa.
And most blacks voted for Obama, doesn't that make them racist?
People voting are not voting for their next preacher. They are voting for their next president.
-->
@DavidAZZ
People voting are not voting for their next preacher. They are voting for their next president.
What does it say about religious people if they will vote for an immoral man to be President? If morality doesn’t matter, why bother with religion?
And most blacks voted for Obama, doesn't that make them racist?
What? When whites vote for a white man to be president, do you think that’s an indication they are racist?
Evangelicals voted for Trump, but Trump is NOT an evangelical, in fact he isn’t even religious. He actually thinks religious people are stupid.
What does it say about you that you call Trump a rapist but not Biden when the exact same evidence stands against Biden?[IWRA] What does it say about religious people if they will vote for an immoral man to be President?