S
SeraRelm
Methinks Juski is in need of a cockpunch for libel.
[Funny] Funny Pictures! (Keep em clean, folks!)
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
S
SeraRelm
GasBandit
Staff member
Technically, "methinks" indicates an expression of opinion which, by definition, cannot be libel (or slander).
Added at: 13:41
Added at: 13:42
Added at: 13:43
Added at: 13:43
ElJuski
Staff member
well, dang.
S
SeraRelm
My opinion on his punishment is not indicative of validity the of the libel itself, therefore your argument is invalid.
GasBandit
Staff member
You can believe he needs a cockpunch on general principles, but when you use the phrase "for libel," it becomes an incorrect argument. Unless you were referring to another, previously unmentioned instance of libel.
S
SeraRelm
My opinion on the proper punishment has nothing to do with the libel's validity, merely the measure to which he should be punished.
Added at: 16:03
It's the same as if I said GasBandit needs a cockpunch for being a douchebag. It neither negates nor emphasizes how much of a douchebag you are, merely indicates my opinion on the proper measures utilized over the matter.
Added at: 16:03
It's the same as if I said GasBandit needs a cockpunch for being a douchebag. It neither negates nor emphasizes how much of a douchebag you are, merely indicates my opinion on the proper measures utilized over the matter.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's because being a douchebag isn't a crime. Whereas libel is. It would be more as if I said SeraRelm needs a cuntpunt for being a prostitute. The opinion is the need, the "for being" would actually be libel, since the assertion is that because you ARE a prostitute, I believe you need to be kicked in the babymaker.
S
SeraRelm
You weren't arguing that though. You were saying my opinion on the level of punishment invalidated the claim, which it doesn't. I may argue your opinion on the level of punishment for me being a prostitute, but it doesn't argue against the validity of your claim that I am or am not a prostitute.
TLDR version, you're wrong. suck it.
TLDR version, you're wrong. suck it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nope. I guarantee you, if one makes a public statement that you hold the opinion that someone should be (subjected to X) for (committing crime Y that they did not commit), that person finds themselves to be in a highly actionable position for libel (or slander) depending upon the medium of the statement.You weren't arguing that though. You were saying my opinion on the level of punishment invalidated the claim, which it doesn't. I may argue your opinion on the level of punishment for me being a prostitute, but it doesn't argue against the validity of your claim that I am or am not a prostitute.
TLDR version, you're wrong. suck it.
He can say he thinks you smell all he wants... but if you say you think he deserves punishment for libel, you are in fact committing libel. "Smiley face."
S
SeraRelm
The libel itself wasn't in question, merely the punishment, and my statement stood as that. Your argument is based on something which did not occur.
Evidence:
1
Evidence:
1
2
The opinion (1) is clearly solely in regards to the level of punishment. Take a break, you're clearly off your game today.
GasBandit
Staff member
Your statement included an accusation of libel, itself libellous, separated in a prepositional statement that segregates it from the "methinks" that would have shielded it from being libel. In other words, "Methinks Juski is in need of a cockpunch for libel" is equivalent to "In that he has committed libel, it is my opinion that Juski is in need of a cockpunch." There is both an assertion of fact and an expression of opinion in the sentence. Whereas Juski's was simply a statement of opinion.
S
SeraRelm
Thought you meant my methinks, not Juski's methinks. Learn to communicate better, Radio guy.
Also, feel free to punch me in the cock for libel.
(gl with that)
Also, feel free to punch me in the cock for libel.
(gl with that)
GasBandit
Staff member
Pfft, you weren't libelling me, I got nothin' to punch you for (other than the usual standard boilerplate stuff). I'm not Juski's attorney, despite the 6 preceding posts that might indicate otherwise. I just like to argue.
ElJuski
Staff member
That's not what you said in bed last night
GasBandit
Staff member
That's not what I didn't say either.
GasBandit
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
I didn't have to be.
Funny pics, dammit.
ElJuski
Staff member
As would just about any aerosolized particulate. I saw that headline, and wondered if the relevant study hadn't been commissioned by the fossilized-plant-and-dead-dinosaur lobby.
--Patrick
Yeah... as far as these things go, I don't really put a whole lot of stock in any specific study that comes out without it being backed up by a bunch of historical data or other studies. The whole process got ridiculous to me back in the late 80s/90s when first eggs were good for you, and then they were bad for you because they were high in cholesterol, but then they were good for you because they were lean protein, and then they were bad for you if you ate the yolks instead of just the egg whites, and then they were good for you again because of essential vitamins and nutrients, and then I stopped caring because it was obvious that the various lobbies were just paying for studies. But I did especially like the parts of the diesel announcement where a) much of the data came from studies 10 years old or order, while due to new technologies within the last 10 years particulates in diesel exhaust (in the US) have been reduced by 98%, and b) they specifically said that "workers in mines who are exposed to diesel exhaust are more likely to develop cancer." Well of course they are. Not only are they being repeatedly exposed to diesel exhaust, but they're being repeatedly exposed to diesel exhaust in a confined and often poorly ventilated space.
Do we want to know what made those stains?
S
SeraRelm
That note was obviously from a dude.
- Status