BlackAx410
Active Member
I hope it’s not true but eating minor pussy is a flagrant foul dawg
Two Women Are Trying To Grill George Forman For Sexual Assault While They Were Minors In The 70's.
- Thread starter O.G.
- Start date
mryounggun
OG
This is how I feel about ALL of these shits. The fact that they waited so long is weird. But if he did the shit, the timeframe is irrelevant.
mryounggun
OG
Why? Serious question. No hate.
DOS_patos
Unverified Legion of Trill member
Sounds very Dos-ish in here.
I see my work here is already done.
I’m not needed here.
I can now rest
If there is evidence showing that Forman did the crime then no one will be advocating for him to not face some type of punishment.
SeaSnake
OG
Yup
DOS_patos
Unverified Legion of Trill member
Playmaker88
G Money is Cash
Playmaker88
G Money is Cash
Great name for a horse
Mister B. M. Ed.
The Devil’s Greatest Advocate…..
1st off - It don't take 50 fuckin years to come out with info. That could've come out 10-20 years ago. It just seems suspicious to me.
2nd - No one's defending anyone, but with the wave off decades-old issues, it's hard to tell what constituted as "assault" back then if you're using today's standards on it. Example: in a workplace, slapping a lady's ass going "hey toots" may seem caveman-ish since 2015, but back in the 70s and 80s, not only was that normal, that shit was almost regular, to the point you saw it on TV over and over.
The retroactive standards people are trying to implement on past actions just doesn't add up now.
That shit was assault back then too. People just didn't take the shit as serious as they should have. I hope you don't teach your students to use this type of logic.
mryounggun
OG
Ok, understood. I disagree with some of that. But understood. But even if that is the case, even if it's 'hard to tell what constituted assault back then'...shouldn't people who claim to have been victimized be granted the opportunity for justice? Even if NOTHING comes from the majority of these cases, shouldn't people who feel they have been victimized be allowed to go through the legal process?
Like, your answer basically boiled down to 'Because it's hard', ya know? I mean, how can ANY legal system function if we start deciding whether or not a person can be held responsible for their actions based on how hard it is to adjudicate?
That doesn't sound wild to you?
Like imagine going to report a serious crime and the officer saying to you 'Na, fuck outta here. It'll be hard to prove that person did that to you. You're out of luck. Next time, be victimized in a fashion that is easier to prove!'.
Again, serious questions. No hate.
Last edited:
mryounggun
OG
That is always my first thought whenever a similar point is made. Poople seem to think that the rules of decorum and shit have changed drastically over the last 70 years, as it relates to sexual assault.
Slapping a woman on the ass has ALWAYS been sexually assault. The only thing that has changed is whether or not it is taken seriously by those that matter and the social norms around the way women are expected to react to such behavior.
But perv behavior in 2022 was perv behavior in 1950. For the most part.
Last edited:
Mister B. M. Ed.
The Devil’s Greatest Advocate…..
I teach Math, fucknigga.
Dickheads STAY coming at my livelihood when you don’t have a suitable argument. At least @mryounggun could respectfully disagree without being a complete asshole about it…..dickhole.
I still disagree with his POV (hence why we HAVE statue of limitations on things in the first place), but his opinion is noted and respected.
Last edited: