|
I assume you'll apologize, correct?
>I never argued that he didn't do anything illegal.
this isn't the discussion, and it's telling that you want to change it to something that wasn't said.
>I responded that sounds terrible, but I don't know if what he describes in a tweet is a crime contrary to what the girl in the tic tok says.
this is 100% correct! It's also describing a weird, bizarre thing to say. There's absolutely no reason to take the position that what you heard him say actually directly reflects the criminal part of the endeavor.
no one asked!
and hey, maybe you need to hear him say that he hit them to believe that he might have done that. you'd be a dumbass if you did, because anyone with a brain realizes that mere convincing won't work for long and violence and forced captivity will obviously be necessary, but it isn't illegal to be stupid.
> But I haven't seen any evidence of him forcing (i.e, beating or otherwise coercing women).
again, no one asked what evidence you've seen, you aren't a judge or juror, no one sent you the case file. what you've seen or not is irrelevant and entirely limited only by your own ignorance
so now we've established that you're responding to an argument you've created about whether or not you said that what he did was illegal, and actually, you said you haven't seen evidence of his crime, which is a dumber thing to say and completely unnecessary.
let's get into why no one else is asking this question you made up, and no one needs to
"I never argued that he didn't do anything illegal. I argued that the loverboy method isn't enough by itself isn't enough to prove sex trafficking which is the point of the original tik tok I shared."
"I argued that the loverboy method isn't enough by itself isn't enough to prove sex trafficking"
You argued that the method, named and described by the police in the statement explaining he was arrested for sex trafficking, isn't by itself enough to "prove" sex trafficking.
Since no one has to "prove" sex trafficking to you, based on one video, to arrest someone, this is a stupid statement to make, and it's not an argument, since there's no other side.
the loverboy method always, every single time, includes the elements Tate didn't mention in his video. And the police had long explained that before you posted his comment.
You didn't listen to them.
You listened to one clip of him talking and for some reason decided to treat that as the only information you could use.
Why'd you do that, only you know the answer
www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
