In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
I feel like your example is a counterpoint to your argument.
No, I didn't disprove my point. My point is that the argument that we're talking about works and has juice because people and society as a whole have certain expectations for whom people like Arnold or Trump date/fuck/whatever. What matters in the Arnold scenario is the public reaction.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
Different era, different understanding sexual assault. Not really sure the argument is going to apply due to the number of women coming forward, from reporters to his own employees.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape...
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Bingo. Trial attorneys are most effective when they are able to make arguments that appeal to the baser prejudices and subconscious thoughts of jurors. Though I personally have a very black and white perspective on the world, I recognize that the "truth" is completely subjective as it pertains to my profession.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape...
It simply does not hold up.
there's a limit to how much you can inform a jury; and to what the jury will believe without having been thoroughly educated. I mean, we still use a lot of eyewitness testimony, even given the VAST amounts of proof showing its unreliability.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape...
It simply does not hold up.
The jury can still be retarded enough where it works. It's a unbelievable long shot. But if you know your client raped them and you really don't have any other defense, he's going to fry anyway you cut it really, then you roll those dice. It could technically work, though the odds are astronomically against you, but there's a chance. I certainly wouldn't want to be the lawyer that was in such a position that he had to go with that though.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape...
It simply does not hold up.
If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed.
EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?).
I feel this conversation boils down to whats basically the beginning of better call saul. Where the guy playing who will become saul goodman makes a good argument for his defendants and the prosecutor simply plays a tape of what happened.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Bingo. Trial attorneys are most effective when they are able to make arguments that appeal to the baser prejudices and subconscious thoughts of jurors. Though I personally have a very black and white perspective on the world, I recognize that the "truth" is completely subjective as it pertains to my profession.
You're going to tell a jury, of which some are women, that the rape victim was too ugly? Do you like to practise self-immolation? Has this ever worked?
On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote: Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly.
On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote: Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly.
Because there was no indication of foul play? Not every unexpected death gets an autopsy.
Doesn't this whole "she was too ugly" argument only get rid of 1 accuser? There are at least 6 at this point, with more coming. Even if he totally wins against this 1 accuser, that doesn't dispose of the rest. And then DJT is left with the stain of calling another woman ugly.
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this:
And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice.
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post
My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks.
In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor.
This is a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed.
Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape...
It simply does not hold up.
If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed.
EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?).
Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees.
It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/19/article-1388875-0C26F21C00000578-570_468x618.jpg)
