On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote: >>
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>>> knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting thatI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have >> anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have >>> anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to steal from them, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't break into people's homes
and steal from them.
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then her >>>>>knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
I'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I
have anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of
the doors and windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home
to steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that
never happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:death, then her
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to
if I haveknifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that >>>>>>> rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>I'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and >>>>>> think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >>> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to put >me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to >>> steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>
self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if >>>>>> I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to >> put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
A parallel
that comes to mind is the Old West's summary lynching of horse thieves ...but the rationale there (I'm told) was that a horse back then was essential to survival, making the theft of one a "capital" crime.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>>
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if >>>>>>> I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the >>>>>>> doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never >>>>> happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to >>> put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a
homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in >my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to >thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >should I do any different?
A parallel
that comes to mind is the Old West's summary lynching of horse thieves
...but the rationale there (I'm told) was that a horse back then was
essential to survival, making the theft of one a "capital" crime.
We have plenty of men that need killin' but we don't have any horses that need >theivin'.
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's home to
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal. >>>>>>>>>
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime. >>>>>
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a
homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why should I do any different?
...
On 6/5/2025 5:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to >>>>>>>>>> death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's >>>>>> home to
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them. >>>>>
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a >>> homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >> they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking >> in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home >> to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
...
But "I" thought you were gone for the evening ...so my *intent* was larcenous but not physically threatening.
E.g., do you think we should shoot shoplifters, who afaics have the same lack of principle?
On Jun 5, 2025 at 3:13:08 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 5:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to >>>>>>>>>>> death, then herI'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in >>>>>>>>>> self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
think of the Empire"!
I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
I have
anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
doors and
windows.
Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.
If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's >>>>>>> home to
steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.
That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".
No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
put
me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
Fuck around and find out.
Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a >>>> homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >>> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
...
But "I" thought you were gone for the evening ...so my *intent* was
larcenous but not physically threatening.
As you're kicking in my door I don't know that and I'm not required to wait to
find out whether you're going to shoot me or not as you invade my home.
moviePig, is this you?
https://ibb.co/M0Gwpp4
E.g., do you think we should shoot shoplifters, who afaics have the same >> lack of principle?
Let's just start with arresting them-- something California Democrats won't do-- and go from there.
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in >my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to >thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >should I do any different?
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if >> they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a >>> danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking >>> in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home >>> to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life more than my property, why should I?
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, >>>>> even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>> when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life >> more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And >>>>>>regardless, even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow >>>>>>know this as they're kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally >>>>>>nor morally required to abandon my home to thieves or stand aside >>>>>>and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, >>>>>>why should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>>>when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own >>>life more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something
you need to seriously consider.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>> wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, >>>>>> even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property. >>>>>>
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt >>>>> when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you need
to seriously consider.
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>> to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're >>>>>>> kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon >>>>>>> my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you >> need
to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a
danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if
they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking
in
my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon
my home
to
thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too. So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, plus
property.
The math does itself.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you >>> need
to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his >>>>>> own life
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>>>> to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their >>>>>>>>> way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal.
It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, >> plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate
one, then they must be suicidal.
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted.
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his >>>>>>> own life
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you >>>>>>>>>> to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their >>>>>>>>>> way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>
And a place where property is valued more than life.
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives, >>> plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty of the criminals who are kicking in my door?
The[y] chose... poorly.If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you. >>>
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate
one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
On 6/14/2025 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:And a place where property is valued more than life.
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted. >>>>>
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And >>>>>>>>>>> regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their
way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>>
own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>>
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger, >>>> too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives,
plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere
non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm
supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty >> of
the criminals who are kicking in my door?
Who knows what you're "supposed" to do?
But some rational humanitarians might take into account how unlikely a burglar is to be also homicidal.
The[y] chose... poorly.If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the >>>>>> probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is
something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you. >>>>
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate >>> one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
Yeah, he'll probably put it towards a new Corvette...
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with howThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were
either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this
one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them at a time?
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote: >>They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people >>>> get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer >>>> jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably >>>> by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.There was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were
either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this
one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them >> at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back
to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new airport....
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
If you hit him upside the head with a blunt instrument, you are being
ever so kind as to remind him that breaking and entering is not proper >etiquette for calling upon you. You are pounding the clue into his
head, hopefully hard enough that the clue will penetrate. I'm sure you
will encounter high SRF but do the very best you can.
It is kind of you to take the time to do this.
Fri, 13 Jun 2025 19:44:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
If you hit him upside the head with a blunt instrument, you are being
ever so kind as to remind him that breaking and entering is not proper >>etiquette for calling upon you. You are pounding the clue into his
head, hopefully hard enough that the clue will penetrate. I'm sure you
will encounter high SRF but do the very best you can.
It is kind of you to take the time to do this.
Alt.sysadmin.recovery which used to be one of my favorite newsgroups
(having earlier in my life been involved in this occupation) used to
refer to such equipment as "LARTS" - "Loser Attitude Readjustment
Tools" such a baseball bat other than on the playing field or more
lethal devices...
They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:31:04 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why >>>> should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life.
Fair enough but if you've forced your way inside my home don't expect
me to think of the worth of your life versus the safety of me and
mine. Somebody who lives their life in terms of the Sermon on the
Mount has nothing whatever to fear from me.
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people >>>>> get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer >>>>> jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably >>>>> by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others.There was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean
tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years. >>>> It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty >>>> plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9 >>>> months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended >>>> sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an
available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in
the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani >>>> migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next
election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country.
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back
to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The
girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their
parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'. We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who face a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
On 6/14/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with how >>>>>> crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most peopleThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean >>>>> tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others. >>>>>>
screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years. >>>>> It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty >>>>> plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9 >>>>> months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended >>>>> sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an >>>>> available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in >>>>> the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani >>>>> migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next >>>>> election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific
area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier
for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country. >>>
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back >>> to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a
first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The >>> girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their >>> parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them
to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply
kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants
to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'. >> We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in >> the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but
strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who
face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
On Jun 14, 2025 at 3:08:06 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/13/2025 7:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 4:02:20 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 13, 2025 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>And a place where property is valued more than life.
wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It is if you're in a place where gun ownership isn't restricted. >>>>>>
On Jun 13, 2025 at 8:31:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:57 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:Once again, if the skell breaking into my house doesn't value his
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:51:49 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you
to be a danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And
regardless,
even if they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're
kicking in my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to
abandon my home to thieves or stand aside and let them have their
way with my property.
And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
should I do any different?
Point taken and as you say you ought to have the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to your own abode.
Absolutely. In a world that values property more than life. >>>>>>>>>
own life
more than my property, why should I?
Umm, in most households anyway, theft isn't considered suicidal. >>>>>>>
If I'm at home when you come to take my property, my life is in danger,
too.
So on one side you have a life. On the other, you have one or more lives,
plus
property.
The math does itself.
They come to take your property, you come to take their life.
But I don't know that. It's not like they announce themselves as mere
non-murderous thieves with every kick on the door. And even if they did, I'm
supposed to risk my life and the lives of my family banking on the honesty
of
the criminals who are kicking in my door?
Who knows what you're "supposed" to do?
I do.
And I forgot to address last time around, where you said that "They come to take your property, you come to take their life". Only half of that is true. In that scenario, they came to me. I didn't come to them. I was quietly minding my own business in my own home when violence and terror arrived on my doorstep. I didn't start the fight, I just ended it.
But some rational humanitarians might take into account how unlikely a
burglar is to be also homicidal.
All one needs to do is spend a day reading the FBI crime stats to see how many
home invasions end up deadly for the residents, even when the thieves could easily have just taken the property and left. A lot of criminals don't like to
leave witnesses to their crimes.
If you're in Texas and considering home invasion as a vocation, the
probability that you'll be shot sooner rather than later is >>>>>>> something you
need to seriously consider.
Or you find someone desperate enough they'll do the invasions for you.
The[y] chose... poorly.
And if it's the free choice you're envisioning, rather than a desperate >>>> one, then they must be suicidal.
Yes, they desperately need my TV to feed their kids. Riiighhht...
Yeah, he'll probably put it towards a new Corvette...
Ironically, you don't realize how right you are.
I was always appalled and amazed when we'd run a search warrant in a home in the ghettos in Houston and L.A., where we'd find babies sitting in their own filth, malnourished, cockroaches everywhere, but darned if there wasn't the latest PlayStation or Nintendo sitting under a giant TV on the wall.
On Jun 15, 2025 at 9:56:25 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 11:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 14, 2025 at 7:32:39 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2025-06-05 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 4, 2025 at 4:55:25 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>> wrote:They're not just importing them in droves, the Labour government is
On Thu, 29 May 2025 16:55:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've seen plenty of commentators remark on their frustration with howThere was a recent case in the UK where a woman who wrote a "mean >>>>>> tweet", then deleted it 2 hours later (after someone had taken a >>>>>> screen shot and e-mailed it to the Crown Prosecutor) got 3 1/2 years.
crime is handled in their country and the meagre sentences most people
get for serious crimes. Meanwhile, people who do mean tweets get longer
jail terms than serious criminals. Many of these comments are probably
by people who just repeat the same gossip they hear from others. >>>>>>>
It seems she got bad advise from the public defender and took a guilty
plea while others who did likewise with her but pled not guilty were >>>>>> either acquitted or token sentences like probation.
That is of course the risk one takes when you 'take a plea' but this >>>>>> one seems especially high even though she is likely to get parole in 9
months.
Meanwhile the "groomers" are being found guilty and getting suspended
sentences.
I personally think it's appalling that suspended sentences are an >>>>>> available sentencing option for rape of a minor but then I'm not in >>>>>> the UK.
Bottom line is the current British government is in fear of Pakistani
migrants be they legal or illegal and think they can't win the next >>>>>> election without Muslim ballots.
If they're so scared of them, why do they keep importing thousands of them
at
a time?
actually planning to spend billions of pounds for a new airport IN
PAKISTAN! Apparently, most Pakistanis in Britain come for a specific >>>> area in Pakistan that is fairly distant from the nearest airport so
Labour wants to build them an airport, presumably so it will be easier >>>> for them to get back and forth when they go back to their home country. >>>>
Among other things, Pakistanis often take their pubescent daughters back >>>> to Pakistan, supposedly for a holiday, but actually to be married to a >>>> first cousin they've often never met and who may be a decade older. The >>>> girls are frequently horrified when they get to Pakistan and learn their >>>> parents' plan; their father or older brothers will literally kill them >>>> to prevent shame to the family if the girl objects. Some girls simply >>>> kill themselves to avoid the forced marriage. Apparently, Labour wants >>>> to make this process easier for British Pakistanis with a shiny new
airport....
Yep, the number of young girls who kill themselves over this 'tradition' far
exceeds the number of troons who kill themselves for not being 'affirmed'.
We're told we have to remake our entire society and actively participate in
the delusions of the mentally ill or they might kill themselves, but
strangely
there's no concern for the far more frequent suicides of young girls who >>> face
a lifetime of abuse and rape by men 30 years older than they are.
When should one society inflict its social mores on another?
People are free to inflict all they like. The government can't require.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 102:05:15 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 78,554 |