LOL foxpoop you simply do not seem to realise that you are completely foolish pushing this further.

Referring to the original analogy there is NO WAY that the police would consider Alices actions as blackmail that would ever result into her being charged or even being mentioned as blackmail.

You are clearly talking nonsense like you always do.

You are now stating the reason Alice would not be charged for blackmail is because BOB can not report the issue without being dropping himself in it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself further.

Just imagine if you can, try and visualise it. You are on a bus and you notice some guy walk up to a girl and grab her phone off her, she screams give it back or I will report you to the police.  

----- first thing you think is ...... this is going to result in a blackmail charge against her?? does anyone outside of meta board even consider that warped version of future events?

Please just seek some reprogramming if that is what you really believe. No wonder you slather out merits for you pals nothing burger word salad puke.

Now you are saying Alice will NOT be charged with blackmail because BOB won't report it  else he will be incriminating himself. haha

How about later on the bus driver reports the incident and makes a  full statement.

.........and then the policeman said........" we're looking for a girl in connection with an attempted blackmail, the victim is male wearing a hoodie and carrying 1 possibly even 2 cell phones " hahahahahahah  

........and then the policeman said " if the victim is watching this on his new cell phone and requires any kind of counselling or support please call 911metaboardpolice ask for agent foxpoop .  hahahaha

tell me more foxy it's brilliant. I can't get enough of you lately. Do you have your own youtube channel ? these gags are classics.

Imagine your dedication (to everything else other than finding my stupid posts obviously) if you did give a fuck...haha


Someone grabs Alices phone and she shouted to the thief " give it back or I'm calling the cops"

.....and then agent fox poop said....... wait for it everyone.......


hhahahahhahahhahahahhahahah - you can not buy this stuff folks. This is master comedic genius at work. I love it.


@Steamtyme

Let's say we just disagree slightly then on the trust/feedback system.


As for seeing things for other peoples point of view. This is fine but as you say social norms are usually useful in extreme cases. There was local outrage once I remember when a burglar consumed some expired produce from some persons home he was ripping off and got terrible food poisoning to the point he nearly died. He then attempted to bring some kind of legal case against them for leaving that there in the fridge whilst they were on their vacation. lol ...

Nothing at all has changed for me since the start of the thread. Alice is the clear victim. Bob is clearly the perp. There is no case for a blackmail charge and BOB is clearly untrustworthy . Sorry there is no 2 victims here for me.

Actually foxpoop does demonstrate by his prior actions that he believes Alice deserves punishment and that BOB deserves to be rewarded. However that will not be revealed at this point since we are still on the analogy not the situation with important similarities. But exclude this for now since it will come later on.

I mean I do love hearing the other persons point of view, especially  when it is so hilarious different and interesting, but of course we need to be sensible some times. We don't want a small subset of food poisoned burglars victims or blackmailed cell phone thieves  using the trust system to enforce their strange and wonderful social norms on the entire board.

Well that is all interesting and great advice. In this case though it is not applicable to me.

I do not feel hurt. These people have been scamming and promoting scams since they joined. To be attacked by them is not hurtful, it is a pleasant and gratifying experience. It demonstrates you clearly stand in contrast to them. I have crushed them before, brought their lies and scams to the point of offering to redeem themselves and compensate those they scammed. I have no interest in acceptance by them.

Acceptance by bad eggs and their supporters would indicate capitulation on my part. Disgusting and weak.  

There is no middle ground. There is a transparent and fair system for all or there is a corrupt and broken system gamed and abused by self serving scum.

You do not as yet realise the implications for this board if you allow freedom of speech to become manipulated by a small corrupt and provably untrustworthy gang.

This though is ALL off topic and too personal for this thread.

Let us get back on topic. Trolling and those making trolling accusations.

Lets analyse what we observe so far in this thread.


1. the pharmacist aka Huge Black Woman - the sneaky greedy racist trolling sock puppet sig spammer making TROLLING accusations against me. However, he fails to produce any examples of this? sounds like a false accusation to me? actually since I have already challenged him MANY times to substantiate and debate with me his claims then I now say that this is tantamount to trolling himself. We know huge black woman is a master sig spamming racist troll so perhaps the pharmacist is unable to control his trolling ways.

2. fox poop appears (who told me he can not give a fck about my posts and yet appears on my threads and seems to give many fcks) and not only fails to produce the posts he claims are stupid, but now will not even help his pal Huge Black Woman to locate and present my  "trolling" posts to analyse and debate.

Why?? because these dumb fools make false accusations over and over again. They try to weaponize trolling and then cast that umbrella term over posts that contain observable events and factual accounts that they wish to hide and bury in the past that demonstrate they are net negative garbage.

Trolling.... proliferating false information continuously and knowingly is trolling. These are your trolls. One caught red handed trolling for btc dust under a sock puppet account, the other busted slathering merits over all his pals accounts seconds between each allocated bunch of cycled merit junk.

I need no acceptance by these types.

TROLLING is the topic here, and those accusing people of trolling over and over without producing evidence even when challenged are the trolls here.

Let me just touch on the last part first.

At no point did Alice say that she would not still inform the police of the incident regardless of whether he gave it back. At which point fox pup can call her a scammer, con artist, untrustworthy and sneaky.

There is always going to be the other persons view. Like the rapist who views the person putting up a struggle as an assault on him and his right to satiate his basic human desires. I mean those fighting back and getting all scratchy, noisy and over excited are not as bad as those that run off altogether I guess but still both should be ashamed of themselves. Wait until they try to report it to the cops because he taped their overreaction and cruelty ....they are fucked either way.

Please don't be ridiculous. No person would entertain this stupidity outside of meta board.

I must remember NOT to say to those drunk fools vandalizing my expensive automobile " stop smashing my car up or else I'm calling the cops" next thing I'll be in jail on blackmailing charges. HAHA fuck you guys crack me up. What victims those vandals would be ahaha

......and then they said "you then proceeded to  blackmail to stop them smashing your car,?? these tit 4 tat tactics are okay you say?? hands behind your back sir, up against the wall please, legs apart , " hahaha

I mean I don't think any police force in the entire world except perhaps the meta board police would even consider Alice as a blackmailer, extortionist it would not even be mentioned. It is quite farcical that foxpoop is trying to say she would be charged with blackmail or extortion or that it makes her untrustworthy. This just serves to demonstrate what kind of imbeciles that we have to endure here the fact the admin makes them merit sources and DT is perhaps worse.

I mean how can people with such broken minds be expected to differentiate between a net negative post and a net positive post. The entire thing is ludicrous.

More worrying is that a mod would ascribe to the idea that Alice is a blackmailer and that Bob is A victim too. He is apparently not THE victim, they are both A victim of each others actions. Haha I love meta board. Once you find it you never look at the world though the same eyes again.

Back to the other thing....

I think a TRUST system is valid for trading here and for financial dealings. So yes you could have a trust score that relies on feedback strictly for SCAMMING and STRONGLY likely to scam. Then just have a link called other feedback where you can read if people have just mentioned an observable event that a DT wanted to forget about in their post history.

 

Huge Black Woman aka the pharmacist the sneaky greedy racist trolling sig puppet spammer appears to break my local rules by making it personal straight away.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231

I wonder how long this imbecile will hang around to help me.

Oh well, since we have a trolling professional here (the pharmacist) to help us debate we shouldn't complain too much.

Now I will use his dumb ass to make an example of what I am talking about here.

HBW can you please present the posts where you claim I am trolling so we can work through them together now.

Can you switch character to Huge Black Woman just for this thread so we can double down on the hilarity.

Also can you bring some of your greatest posts demonstrating original thought provoking insights that made a huge difference here .... just so we can really see the contrast between a troll and a great post deserving of a highly paid sig campaign SPAM right under it.

No trolling in this thread please. Irony like this is okay, but not first thing in the morning after the heavy night (of laughter) before.

hahaha stop it with the short posts. I want the long funny ones. You know those are 20 merit from each pal at least. Come on hilarious where are you ffs??  being a bit stingy tonight are you not?? get those merits on foxy's last post that was one of his best yet. Far more funny than even the first pile of shit.

Tell me about the 2 wrongs again. I like that bit. hahahaha. Don't rush it, go into it all in depth , build me up slowly my ribs are killing me. Can you do it like a role play ...more descriptive like.

Sort of like this... (scene 3  alice arrives at the police station to give statement)...

Then the policeman said to Alice " So he didn't snatch the phone and dive through the moving buses window straight away you say?? (he raises one eyebrow with slight doubt creeping in...sounds like a tall tail ...thieves don't hang around long usually he thought to himself) ...  you didn't actually say the words ' I will tell the police if you don't give me back my phone... did you Alice?? I mean you know 2 wrongs don't make a right ...right??, These blackmailing tendencies have you been experiencing those for quite some time now or just when on the bus??

sort of like that.

Actually start on the bus when Bob appears. I want to hear how it all plays out in your mind make it realistic and I want to see foxy justice served up in all of its glory. hahaha

you're not a lawyer are you by any chance?


@r1s2g3

Is that another vote for alice sent to devils island immediately I hear?

What about BOB? ....have you seen that one?

So let us pick out the important points from your bunch of garbled words, speculations, guess work, false accusations and excuses.

1. you can NOT demonstrate any stupid posts that I have made  because......excuses. (you can't find any)

You don't want to find them because you don't give two fucks.. but you do give enough fucks  to come to many of my threads and make your word salad meaningless observably foolish comments and rather long replies. What ?? that sounds a bit crazy to me. Nobody would reason like this, nobody can make sense of that.... haha  Don't put this in an analogy ffs that sounds so stupid and nobody would believe it  .........and then after doing all that  he said "I can't find those stupid posts because I don't give 2 fucks"..............hahhahahha

No sane person can fall for this kind of idiotic nonsense fox pop farts out (well hilarious can obviously) .......and then after reading this he gave foxy another 10 merits . lololololololol

and then they said there was no political meriting allowed.................ahahahahahhahahahhaha

2. sorry but your speculation and guess work regarding the analogy does NOT invalidate the analogy. Your speculation and claims to know the minds of ALL cell phone thieves on the planet is as stupid as the rest of your 19 merit net negative trash post. (Not as stupid as your obvious lame excuses above though)

If i wish to say in my analogy that BOB took alices phone and did not immediately jump from the bus that is up to me. If I wish to say that Alice said to bob that she will tell the cops if he did not give it back (even though she suspected he may consider she would do that anyway) then I can. You can't come along and say this is a stupid analogy because people who are 100% rational may do things differently . Perhaps a phone thief is prone to the odd crazy impulse. It is my analogy and if there are important and crucial similarities to my paired example then that is not a stupid analogy.

I mean it is a hell of a lot more believable that someone will take the time to write all of these long replies in my threads but does not care one bit about backing up anything he says in them because it is not important enough for him to just pick one from the thousands of observably stupid posts I have made that should take about 5 seconds. hahaha

Only greater fools would consider it anything but the unraveling of a demented mind in public.

Try not to over complicate it for yourself this is why you are having a problem where a small child would simply say

Bad Bob - Poor Alice (victim)  

Tell me again about how bob is A victim here who needs a reward and is to be trusted  and Alice is a blackmailer who deserves punishment and now untrustworthy. I like hearing you spout ludicrous nonsense. That is suchmoon like madness.  This shit only gets any traction in meta anywhere else it is met with anything ranging from laughter to uncomfortable embarrassed looks to outright terror and disbelief. haha meta board. Come on guys is this one big rick roll?

Emotion is acceptable if you feel strongly.

However READ the local rules. They specifically say this is not to be made personal. Or keep it as broad as possible anyway. Don't go straight into personal attacks I mean I am sure this thread will descend into that eventually but let's hold out past the first post.

Better if you bring one point at a time and bring an example because it looks nothing like trolling. You seem to be referring to general forum debates and disagreements. You need to separate the truth from the bullshit before you can tell whom if any of the different factions are trolling or just fighting for their respective views that they actually believe in. Aggression, emotion, harassment are relative terms (not essentially negative and actually quite net positive in some instances) and very context dependent. This is why any accusation of TROLLING needs to be examined closely.

One persons "destroy" bitcointalk could be another persons "save" bitcointalk from becoming a useless broken down echo chamber.

The best way to rid yourself of the negative characters that you seem to be trying to describe is to force them into debates and dismantle their arguments and crush their false claims. Once their false claims are crushed beyond doubt then if they keep promulgating these views or ideas that could well be trolling. Or you can just reference the topic where those views or ideas were demonstrated to be incorrect and false.

Since you arrived here very recently your views although genuine to you, could be net negative with regard to creating an optimal forum environment for crypto to thrive  if analysed by someone smarter or with more experience. That is what debate is for.

I mean to say that which may you consider net negative could actually be net positive or the other way around. Only a debate will eventually reveal which it is.










 

Local rules - no accounts with less than 150 activity, no making it personal. This discussion is for creating sensible general rules that apply to ALL persons equally.


Let us not focus on any one person, but rather a general rule that I think we need to establish here. Since the trolling accusation is often weaponized to silence people or provide excuse to avoid tackling issues we may just be ashamed of.


If we are to "constantly" accuse a person/s of trolling or being a troll then should we not be required to present evidence to substantiate  this claim?  It is quite a serious accusation after all.

I mean if the accused on numerous occasions insists they are NOT trolling, that their information is correct and true, and challenges the accuser to provide evidence to substantiate their claim then surely the onus is on the accuser to present the OBVIOUSLY FALSE NONSENSE that they the accused  are continually said to be promulgating ?? I mean surely it must be proven false or incorrect ??

Surely if the accuser can NOT provide proof of OBVIOUSLY FALSE NONSENSE then they themselves are TROLLING by continually presenting false information/accusations regarding that person being a troll. When they have constantly failed to substantiate their "claims".

You can not simply call someone a troll because you want them to stop saying things that you do not like or that you feel are true but casts you in an unfavourable light. That is just an unfair weapon to crush free speech/the truth.

I mean if the person accused of being nothing other than a troll challenges his accusers to present even one example of his obvious false nonsense and they can not.... then surely they must be careful not to meet the criteria of becoming trolls themselves??

I think that a person should be able to challenge his accusers in a rep thread,  and if they can not present evidence of habitual posting false information then they must be warned about making this same accusation again.

Let's start allowing the truth to shine through here on BCT again.




The rules on this board say...

"If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post)."


Apologies for my numerous posts today but unexpected poor weather provided me with opportunities that I had to capitalise on. Sadly I will be unable to sustain this level of content creation.

Which part is the difficult part for you? I can help explain it perhaps.

Break it down at which point in the OP do you get stumped?

Is Alice the blackmailer and untrustworthy requiring punishment?

Or

Is bob the victim and deserving of trust/reward??

@hilarious and co. ONLY to reply to this.

this is specifically for you and your 10 merit politically motivated award to foxpoops observably moronic and net negative shit post.


Let me break this down for your consumption.

1. Fox pup starts off with saying "Of all the stupid things you've said, this is somewhat less stupid than average, but not by much."

I ask him to bring these stupid posts and debate with me how they are stupid  . I  fail to see how an analogy can be called stupid without actually knowing the "similarities" to the mirrored scenario that I am referring to. I mean an analogy can be ANY situation or example that has similarities to another.

I mean for you to be in agreement then you yourself must be able to produce all of this STUPID, incorrect, false material that I generally post . Can you produce it please??  I mean surely you don't merit things that are false and therefore net negative do you? I will debate with you ANY thread that I have started here in meta.


2. Foxpup assumes that an analogy must for some unknown reason depend upon and be bound by (her) universally acknowledged behaviours/psychology  of cell phones thieves. He then makes some broad "no person would do this " " no thief would do that"  assumptions that are of course  impossible to substantiate, and of course supplies no stats to suggest that any of his claims are anything other than bogus.  He misses the point that I could give an analogy involving a purple cat dog that resides on mars if I wanted to. Only a fool like fox pup believes that invalidates it as a analogy without knowing the similarities to its paired example.

3. SHe says the example makes no sense to her . That is THE POINT sometimes when you are pairing examples or scenarios for similarities if one example or scenario goes against that accepted and familiar experiences in your life and makes NO SENSE (to you).... then of course the analogy must also go against what you would consider to be general or sensible /normal behaviour.

Even stating that it is stupid without knowing the other scenario or experience the analogy is analogous to is completely stupid in itself. How would you make an analogy seem all sensible and reasonable if the paired experience was completely unreasonable and verging on ludicrous??

You see meriting net negative stupid crap like this demonstrates you have no clue how to give out merit. Unless you are going to debate with me and prove me wrong. Let me wait and see.  Mods should be entirely objective and also distance themselves from all observable wrong doing.

Now let's hear YOU and only YOU explain why you thought fox pups observably STUPID post full of moronic assumptions and invalid claim of my apparent stupidity and stupid posts is worthy of 10 merits.

Next I will be asking you many more questions so don't just vanish. Keep checking back. I have plenty of questions for you and many of the choices that are observably taking place.

Everytime I ask you something you seem to run off and hide up. Why? just come and debate with me after all I'm apparently completely stupid as you claim to believe and you will be able to humiliate me into submission in no time at all.

Or just keep hiding away and slathering merit on net negative trash and faux rebuttals from sub human vile vermin like fox poop and suchmoron.

Come and debate ...let's do it.


@Steamtyme

So I am not clear on what you are saying here.

Red trust is for scammers and those STRONGLY likely to scam. There is no point having a "score" that means something different to every person on the board. It renders the score pointless.

This is not about signature campaigns for me. I say they should all be banned outright for everyone except mods to supplement their income. I mean ask hilarious and co he definitely wants to retain his sigs so that's fair enough.

Just call any other "feedback" .... well ....why don't we call that feedback for everything other than proven scams and STRONGLY likely to scam incidents.  That don't result in a " warning warning this person is a scammer" glowing red symbol on your account. People can read about how you are evil and an extortionist/ blackmailer/ scammer you are for advising people to review other peoples feedback  LOL

You are wrong and I will demonstrate clearly why there are red tags given for instances very similar to this.

Look at that snitch skank suchmoon trying to derail and make this a joke.

Sadly this is not going to work.

---

I have made my mind up because it is 100% obvious to most reasonable and rational persons that the outcome is that actually

Bob is the bad guy he has done something observably "wrong". he is the untrustworthy one. He deserves the punishment.

Alice is the victim and has done nothing wrong and deserves NO punishment at all.

I mean the mere fact foxpoop and that other imbecile yogg are saying in this analogy that ALICE is a blackmailer untrustworthy and deserves punishment and BOB is the victim and is deserving of trust. is fucking insane and demonstrates clearly they do not have the judgement suitable for DT.

It really is that simple. Forget what the analogy even represents just imagine this is a real scenario and people are telling you ALICE is a blackmailer and bob is the victim.
You want these fucking clowns dishing out justice here?

Forget what the analogy represents that is their honest assessment of that scenario.

To the other turds here like suchmoon trying to obscure and derail this important point that we have people with this kind of judgement on DT ...you are just making it more apparent that you are net negative trash.

LATER we can get to what the analogy represents there is no point speculating on it right now.

The point is to see how perceived justice is served out by people here.

Correct. Yes because Alice is saying she will tell the police if she does not get her phone returned then yes this is OF COURSE acceptable. Also there is no way to go further and say at any point BOB is the victim and needs some reward.

@shoeshine

what nonsense are you slobbering on about? keep to THIS analogy.  Not some stupid nonsense you thought up via your mass of misfiring junk.

This is the problem you see. I advocate free speech for everyone. You just insist on free speech for you and your pals and self moderate and local rule me into silence. After trying to to sshh me up with red trust and bans. Forget this for now we can have a different thread about that. You can open a thread for free speech else where.

So here we get to it.

This is the problem, to me BOB is not a victim AT ALL. This is stupid there is no point in this analogy where we can say BOB is a victim.

On top of this. You take it further in that you want to punish ONLY Alice and REWARD BOB.

Your reasoning and yoggs and tmans and laudas is corrupt and you should not be near the DT system at all.

Suchmoon is trying to derail. There is no end in sight to the net negative shit that spews all over this board. She only wants to derail this thread because she knows where it is headed.

Now explain why BOB is at any point a victim that needs a reward whilst Alice is in the wrong and deserving of punishment.


@FH - this does sound like one solution but then DT will say ALICE is a murderer so certainly untrustworthy.

Okay, look, do not start worrying if the analogy is a correct representation of another scenario. This is not important for this thread.

The DT's were commenting on the analogy only. Take it as a hypothetical example if you like.

The police are fully aware it was/is Alices phone and that bob took it away. The central point is

is alice allowed to say to bob she will tell the police if he does not give her phone back?? or is that not allowed.

DT's are claiming that Alice is blackmailing BOB when she tell him if he does not return her phone then she will report him to the police.

this is what you should all be focusing on. This is their reasoning on this example.
 
Let us call it a hypothetical example if that makes it easier to comment on. There is nothing to SOLVE  really. Take it at face value there are no sub layers to unravel. Alice had not previously stolen the phone from bobs dead uncle who she shot with a bazooka who was a gang member but was later revealed to be on the pay roll of the nsa working under a rogue commander who happened to be a double agent too . This does not need to get complicated. Take it at face value.

 

well view it that she said that then if that helps

I will report YOU or I will report YOUR actions ie the theft does not really matter for this.

Welcome to wonderland.


@foxpup

 Meanwhile Start a thread with all the stupid things I have said so that I can demonstrate they are all true and not stupid at all. Not here though make your own thread.

So you didn't have these problems earlier on foxpup. You just said that Alice was a blackmailer and therefore untrustworthy?

Why now all the speculation on the universal set of behaviours  that cell phone thieves are bound to because you say so ? this is not at all important. Or are you now changing your tune? is alice now not a blackmailer and untrustworthy?

What happened -- happened. That is the analogy.  You are not here to say it is unlikely to happen in that way. You are meant to stick to your original statement that Alice is a blackmailer and untrustworthy. Or are you now saying that is not what you would say if asked to comment this scenario?  Analogies need not be what you would consider realistic they only need to mirror the principles of another scenario.

So you are changing your mind now or not? alice the blackmailer and bob the victim yes or no?

Local rules - no qwk since as he says the truth does not interest him and red trust for innocent people is good because it just creates added awareness of the dangers out there. No sock puppets with less than 150 activity.
DISCUSS ONLY THE ANALOGY HERE nothing else.


So here is the analogy


Alice is on the bus and suddenly BOB (alice has never seen him before) turns up and grabs Alice's cell phone and claims he is keeping it and it is now his own personal cell phone. Alice then says to BOB give my phone back BOB or else I will go to the cops and report this theft. (report bob to the police for taking her phone away by force ...extra clarity needed for some people apparently)

MANY DT members now claim this is how they view that analogy and how each character should be viewed and treated.


Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy

Bob = victim and trustworthy

Police should reward BOB  and punish Alice.


They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.  

I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.

Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha

I think you will find it started to go off topic as a result of others also. I have just allowed it to run since the thread is under my own local rules since I find it interesting it has attracted the same "gang" that any criticism of one of their felchers does.

NOW

Back to the analogy stop side tracking and avoiding.

How do you NOT understand YOU are the police in this analogy? are you this stupid or you are just pretending to be stupid?

What is the point of commenting on the analogy if you do not understand it at all?

Let's confirm English is not your first language -- is that correct?

You do understand that "else I will" can be used in a way that does not mean you are implying something negative right?

" If you do not then I will" is not a case in isolation. You understand that right?

Okay so now we notice you try to focus on some swearing and accurate descriptions of your mental state.
Also cutting out the context to mislead people into thinking it was just some ranting with no substance.

Place the entire sentences and a I will gladly substantiate every single one of the statements of observable truth.

This is called sidetracking and avoiding the central point.

Let's go back to the analogy.

Why do you not grasp you are the police rewarding the thief and punishing the victim??

Which parts of this cell phone theft on the bus analogy are you having trouble with??

Stop sending me 1000btc every day -- or else --- I will do anything you ask me too ---- ooohhhhh there is a tough one for you.

Shut up you moron. This demonstrates what an imbecile you are. Just because "some words" in a sentence may be used by someone else to do something negative or immoral means nothing you cretin.

I can not believe you actually reason like this you drooling feltching scum bag.

Of course only a person dumber than yourself like fox poop would merit this kind of stupid reply.

You are too dumb to realise that you are the police throwing the victim in jail in this analogy... you poor deranged ass muncher.

Did you not understand the analogy ffs? please some take away his keyboard and get him off DT. Imagine the damage such an idiot can cause in a trust position.

Any other DT employing this fucked up reasoning needs removal at once. Anyone including these fools on DT need blacklisting too.