>something can be morally wrong and not illegal. Something can
>be morally wrong and illegal.

cool. discuss both of them, at the same time.

>
>That being said, i don't even know what post you are talking
>about where i'm flipping to a legal definition. The part about
>a legal definition came up bc its talked about in the
>article.

your reply in this thread, scroll down.

>
>My whole point was that legal definition rarely if ever comes
>up when discussing a man hitting a woman bc whether it falls
>under the umbree\lla of dv or not legally, everyone is usually
>disgusted by the behavior and calls the person out.

which isn't true at all. I don't know why you think it is or would say this, but this is not and has not been consistently true.

>
>Plus, the comment you made about taking pics being more wrong
>than whooping someone as described by RR is ridiculous and you
>wouldn't dare say that if the genders were reversed.

well, your imagination of what I would and would not say is apparently a bigger factor than things people actually do say, so....


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at