Lurker > PtlessAgmnts

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Reiss posted...

Bio1590 posted...

A bunch of the accounts got Warned, I guess we know why @PtlessAgmnts was so fucking mad this morning lmfao

This his him right now

Responding to his own account lol, the projection. And this is a good thing since it shows how delusional your paranoia is. If those are my accounts and doing the same thing as me, why am I not warned? Just because you use a bunch of alts to display how angry and miserable your personal problems are doesn't mean others do. :^)

Oh oh! I can answer that for you.

You respond in the exact same style of anger that Whereisthisfoem responded to me in his meltdown in the Child molester getting curb stomped topic. Complete even with the self-reassuring passive aggressive smiley faces. And seeing how Whereisthisfoem is currently warned....
The reason you have not been warned yet is cause you have yet to be marked or modded for necrobumping on this particular account.

And another reason you are alts with every necrobumper mentioned in this topic: In the child molester stomping topic you immediately retaliated against me with alt accusations as well. Saying I was the alt of someone named @Rika_Furude on the basis that both of our accounts were created in the same month.

Bio1590 posted...

A bunch of the accounts got Warned, I guess we know why @PtlessAgmnts was so fucking mad this morning lmfao

This his him right now

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Jesus that spreadsheet. This is literally the most important thing in some of y'all's lives.

How fucking mad is this dude that he's getting called out on his shitty gimmick lmfao.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

I'm being serious this whole topic. I'm not sure why you asked that.

Because I find it hard to believe you think:

A) A security could reasonable convince a jury that having a single person do their hiring, or a single person and their close friends is reasonable.
B) That any other company couldn't make such ridiculous claims as well.

Death penalty.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Huh?

What part of my question did you not understand?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Why doesn't this apply to the concert company too?

Are you being serious?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What if it is? Or like a few people who were this dude's friend or something. They'd have to prove it of course but assuming they did?

Then the company would have to convince the Jury that it wasn't their fault, and it was totally reasonable for them to have a single person do the hiring.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

More likely that the concert company is lying or the broadcasting company is lying you're saying?

Yes.

Like that Georgia rape case where the entire company had to compensate for their employee's actions. The reasoning was that the company shouldn't have recruited him but then it'd just be the recruiter guy's fault wouldn't it?

I doubt the security company, only has one person doing the hiring.

StarSpangled posted...

Justice is served

@StarSpangled why did you delete post 11?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Yeah, the emails would be conclusive but how you can prove they said anything in phone records?

They wouldn't prove the claim but they'd be strong supportive evidence. Afterwards, if it was being investigated, the concert company would be asked about it. Whoever's doing the investigation would decide what they think is more likely.

So I just want to understand you clear; what you're saying is that the responsibility is the concert company and not the broadcasting company, am I correct?

If the concert company lied about what they have planned for the concert, or one of their employees stopped following the plans they'd be responsible, yes.

In the manifesto, Larson called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a white supremacist hero. He urged Congress to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, adding, We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property,

Larson wrote numerous posts endorsing child rape and other forms of sexual abuse.

Why doesnt every pedo just focus on making money so they can get a pedo-wife and then either impregnate her with some f***toys or adopt some f***toys? he wrote on the platform in October. That would accommodate both those who are and arent into incest. And of course, the adoption process lets you pick a boy or a girl.

Larson has a 3-year-old daughter who lives with relatives. He told HuffPost that he relinquished his parental rights during a custody battle. His ex-wife who he raped got a court-ordered restraining order against him in 2015 before committing suicide. He has since remarried, he says, and is now living in Catlett, Virginia.

According to the site, which HuffPost viewed before it was taken down, incelocalypse refers to the day we make the jailbaits our rape-slaves. (The term jailbait is slang for a person who is under the legal age of consent for sex.)

PtlessAgmnts posted...

This is one of those moments where the EU is trying to infringe privacy don't you think?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

But what about if they can't prove it? They'd also have to prove that they contacted the company in the first place right?

They'd have the phone records, or e-mails to prove it.

But the company didn't censor their songs. And if they did but told someone else to come up and they broke that rule, who's responsible for that?

The company who told someone to come up would be responsible.

Under the hypothetical that the company didnt tell them they'd censor anything and the broadcasters still decided to show it to the public that would be them disregarding their research.

Yes, if you come up with a new hypothetical situation, you'd end up with a new hypothetical situation.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Then the company would be the one responsible for lying, right?

Only if it can be proved they were lying, in which case they'd be guilty of fraud.

Though since the songs were in the line-up itself and could be read by any of the broadcasters attending the concert it still wouldn't have been to the best of a professional broadcaster's abilities imo. You think differently?

If a company has agreed to censor their songs, I don't see why the broadcaster should assume the company is lying. Maybe if the company has a known or rumoured history of lying about it.

And I meant what do you mean by saying it hasn't happened here because this happened in the US, which has different broadcasting laws than the UK and we're just discussing a hypothetical.

The examples in post 34 are different to the hypothetical we've been discussing.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Meanwhile this guy ran a forum endorsing child rape, says children are sex-toys and rape-slaves, says he's attracted to his own 3 year old daughter, says a man should be allowed to kill his wife for cutting her hair without permission, and called Hitler a white supremacist anti-political correctness hero.

Runs for congress.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824?vf5

Being a psycho dumbass doesn't disqualify someone from running for office. That's why we have voting.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

The song was in the line-up and the iteniery. How could they have done their research and not found evidence it would be used?

They could contacted the company and asked them about the lyrics used and been assured racial slurs wouldn't be used.

What cases didn't happen here

The cases you listed earlier in post 34.

why is that relevant?

It's not, which why I said they weren't relevant.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So if they broadcasted this they either wouldn't have done their research or they would have done their research but disregarded it.

Or they did their research, and found no evidence racial slurs would be used.

What do you mean neither case happened here?

I don't see how I can be more clear.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

You're saying if there's a high likelihood that something not allowed to be broadcasted would occur such as a rap concert with slurs in the lyrics of the to be performed songs and they continue to broadcast it they would get in legal trouble are you not?

No. I'm saying they need to do the research, on what is likely to happen before broadcasting. Going "oh hey it's rap concert so there's probably going to be racial slurs" is not doing the research.

Both not trying to find out the information and putting in the effort and finding the information but disregarding it would be illegal, don't you agree?

Sure, but neither case has happened here, so you might as well say "killing a bunch of people for no reason is illegal ". You'd be just as relevant.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense in most cases.

Which is irrelevant to the conversation. We aren't talking about an event in which they are ignorant of the law.

Like you said, if they went to a nudist beach and recorded a naked child they'd get in trouble for it even if they claimed they didn't know naked children would be there.

I didn't say that at all. I said basically the opposite. At least from a legal perspective.

I don't think it's just what information they got.

Sure, it's also what effort they go to in order to get more information.

Unless they have reason to believe it's quite likely for a naked child to run in front of the camera, like it's a nudist beach full of children, they wouldn't get in legal trouble

Virginia

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What do you mean?

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. It would depend on what information they get about racial slurs.

how the fuck is this fair???

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So then logically, if this concert was confirmed to likely have racial slurs and it was still broadcasted live because either the broadcasters not caring to look it up or looking it up but not caring they would get in trouble for that right?

It would depend on what information about the racial slurs was confirmed in advance.

If you look closely, you can see a ramp Sonic can launch himself off of to get in a hit once he is done dodging the suitcase projectiles.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Just like with jimmy kimmel it?s in the past so who cares.

Just like with that Samantha chick, it?s not even that bad of a word.

Jimmy Kimmel did nothing wrong.

While I'm satisfied that she is at least seeing prison time, one year is way too short of a sentence.