Current Events > Does anybody here think stormy daniels is lying?

(+) Yeah! (+)

HippopotamusRex posted...

Let by definition implies agency.

Agency is the capacity to act. Not preventing something from happening is not acting.

Why are you trying to be reductionist? Action theory is a nuanced philosophical area. You can even see in law that someone's inaction is found as culpability in some cases but not in others.

Beyond that, it seems like an attempt at a dumb semantic argument, because you seem to be setting yourself up to say that if you let someone have sex with you but you're too young/too drunk/etc. then you aren't "letting" them.
---

If she was lying, she would end up in very hot water really quickly.
---

HippopotamusRex posted...

stone posted...

Heineken14 posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

For the sane world, 'they let you' implies consent.

No, it does not.

This.
There are many, many reasons why someone would let you do whatever they want to you that aren't consent. Not even going to list them 'cause you probably couldn't understand anyway, or would try to deflect some more.

No, there's not. Just by the actual language that the word let allows. Let by definition implies agency. It's non-deterministic. By default if you have the power to let something happen, you have the power. It's the exact opposite of causal language. But glad to see you have nothing left to add. Run along to your liberal arts class now, your indoctrination is coming along quite well. You're actually learning less than someone who would literally do nothing except stare at a wall because your basic English skills are atrophying. I'm sure the debt will be nice too.

Do you actually believe all that or are you just too, to use your own words, indroctinated? Don't worry, Senpai Trump will notice you! Keep up the good work, and don't forget to clean up those cheetos crumbs you have at the corner of your mouth.
---

Heineken14 posted...

MattSFfrd posted...

I brought up Clinton because

To deflect. You brought up Clinton to deflect. Literally the only reason.

deflected from what? i answered the original question. what do you want, 500 responses of yes or no?
---

Bio1590 posted...

GameFAQs: "You can't call someone a nerd, that's flaming"

Also GameFAQs: "It's totally fine that accounts are running around saying that people who 'let' themselves be sexually assaulted are consenting to it"

Because the mods aren't insane. You can re-read my post and see that's not at all what I am saying. Anyone who isn't duplicitous or radicalized can do so easily. Unfortunately you are going to be in for a very, very rude awakening once you leave your little bubble and see what the actual world is like.

I almost feel sorry for you and the rest of the same people with your cult mentality in here that you've been so damaged by your school system that you can actually believe what you are spewing.
---

Anteaterking posted...

HippopotamusRex posted...

Let by definition implies agency.

Agency is the capacity to act. Not preventing something from happening is not acting.

Why are you trying to be reductionist? Action theory is a nuanced philosophical area. You can even see in law that someone's inaction is found as culpability in some cases but not in others.

Beyond that, it seems like an attempt at a dumb semantic argument, because you seem to be setting yourself up to say that if you let someone have sex with you but you're too young/too drunk/etc. then you aren't "letting" them.

The initial reductionism is the very act of analyzing Trump's sentence and not appealing to broader context. It's not absurd to counter reductionism with reductionism. You are too short sighted to see that apparently. Don't blame someone countering reductionism with...reductionism. Blame the people holding a specific sentence under a microscope.

So yeah, that's 'why I am trying to be reductionist'. It's literally all there is to work on in the context of that conversation because it was turned into reductionism by the people bringing it up back in 2016.
---

Bio1590 posted...

lmao bruh

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/6841-how-old-are-you

Based on that poll over 70% of GameFAQs was 16 or younger (or wasn't even born) when Clinton left office, meaning they were 8 or younger (and even more weren't even born) when he was elected.

"Other people were kids so I am justified in claiming it doesn't matter."

stone posted...

I wasn't even an adult and didn't care about politics back then. So yeah.

Fine I'll give you that but that still doesn't excuse the excessive handwaving away of all the shit Bill Clinton did that a majority of the board is angry at Trump for doing.
---

MattSFfrd posted...

Heineken14 posted...

MattSFfrd posted...

I brought up Clinton because

To deflect. You brought up Clinton to deflect. Literally the only reason.

deflected from what? i answered the original question. what do you want, 500 responses of yes or no?

From whether or not you think shes lying. Clinton literally has nothing tondo with this topic and you brought it up anyway to muddy the waters of something happening to Donnie.
---

1. Trumps personal lawyer said he himself paid her out of pocket but didnt admit to it being because of an affair with Trump.

2. People who think shes lying havent been paying attention to developments on the story.

3. The story is important because no one believes the lawyer when he said he borrowed against his own home equity line to give her the money.

4. Its suspected that the payment was actually campaign money which is illegal.

5. Multiple other women have come foward claiming to have had affairs with Trump as well.

6. Fake tabloids like the National Enquirer paid off some women by claiming the rights to their story. (Its owned by Trumps friend)
---