The WTF??? thread

[GuD]

I was talking about you, in case ya missed that

[Key]

Where'd the 'WTF' go? All I see is arguing about stupid bull****. I want to see some 'WTF'!

[ladyislingering]

when I was working at a convenience store in '10, I was filling the cappuccino machines and a customer brought me a strange metal piece. He said "you might need this".

guess what it was.

just fucking guess.

Spoiler for you won't believe this:

he just got done using the restroom and ripped the handle off the fucking toilet.

[butthead aka 216]

Originally Posted by WhateverDude

I was talking about you, in case ya missed that

lol no of course i got it, i just agree that theres a lot of ignorance only comin from you instead

i made the last relevant post before ya went off track so i guess we can agree to disagree then

[Paul Smeenus]

If anyone thinks that, if it was their own minor son or daughter that had to face a sexual predator, and they had any reaction other than AT LEAST wanting to see that man put in jail, and CERTAINLY if they thought that a naked man trying to lure their minor son or daughter into a vehicle was "funny", I want absolutely nothing to do with those people. At ALL. And if anyone thinks that a naked man attempting to entice said minor son or daughter is anything BUT a sexual predator is so helplessly thick skulled I don't know what to say except I would want NOTHING to do with them. At ALL. If that had happened to my son or daughter I would hunt them down with every cell of energy in my soul and see to it that they were prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law. And AT A MINIMUM the law here would be Criminal Child Enticement.

"Whoever, with intent to commit any of the following acts, causes or attempts to cause any child who has not attained the age of 18 years to go into any vehicle, building, room or secluded place is guilty of a Class D felony:

(1) Having sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the child in violation of s. 948.02, 948.085, or 948.095.

(2) Causing the child to engage in prostitution.

(3) Exposing a sex organ to the child or causing the child to expose a sex organ in violation of s. 948.10.

(4) Recording the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(5) Causing bodily or mental harm to the child.

(6) Giving or selling to the child a controlled substance or controlled substance analog in violation of ch. 961."

(source Wisconsin Statutes 948.07 - Child enticement :: Lawserver, I'm sure Canadian law is similar)

So this is no longer my "opinion", this is cold hard law. There's no room to "agree to disagree" with that.

/thread for me. And at least 1 more addition to the ignore list.

[Mr. Charlie]

No room to disagree? Laws can be disagreed with because laws are nowt but peoples opinions - opinions made into law. They ain't given to us by nature or God, they're created by people, people with irrational fears and faults and fallacies. In 40s Germany it was illegal to sell goods to Jews. In 50s Britain it was illegal to be a homosexual. In 60s America it was illegal to let a black person sit on the same bus seat as a white. Just because something is law, doesn't necessarily mean it's right or should be followed blindly.

Not saying I diasagree with any of those laws you listed, but laws are just the opinions of lawmakers and can be accepted or rejected.

But why are you so sure the guy in the story is a sexual predator? Nobody knows whether he was or not so best we stop pretending we do.

[Plankton]

The GF was ordering Chinese food one day, and when she gave the Chinese man on the line her credit card information, all I could hear her saying was "One go two? What the hell is one go two?" for about 5-10 minutes until she finally figured out he was telling her that her card "Won't go through".

WTF.

[Mr. Charlie]

[Sansa Stark]

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie

No room to disagree? Laws can be disagreed with because laws are nowt but peoples opinions - opinions made into law. They ain't given to us by nature or God, they're created by people, people with irrational fears and faults and fallacies. In 40s Germany it was illegal to sell goods to Jews. In 50s Britain it was illegal to be a homosexual. In 60s America it was illegal to let a black person sit on the same bus seat as a white. Just because something is law, doesn't necessarily mean it's right or should be followed blindly.

Not saying I diasagree with any of those laws you listed, but laws are just the opinions of lawmakers and can be accepted or rejected.

But why are you so sure the guy in the story is a sexual predator? Nobody knows whether he was or not so best we stop pretending we do.

Because he preyed sexually on a young girl!??!?!??! No offense to Zoe, but she looks quite young for her age (you are still super adorable and ilu 2 bits tho) so that makes it even more disgusting. She even said she was intimidated so how the **** is he not a sexual predator?! I'm willing to bet she's not the first girl he's done that to, and I'm sure they range in ages younger than 17. Just..how the **** can you even say he's not a sexual predator, like literally no logical thought behind that, whatsoever

[Mr. Charlie]

I'm neither saying he is or is not a sexual predator. I'm saying I don't know. Maybe he was a rapist. Maybe it was nothing but a silly forfeit he was carrying out after losing a bet.