Welcome Guest

you're literally too stupid to discuss this with, apparently

Posted on: January 4, 2019 at 11:08:39 CT

90Tiger STL

Posts:

163976

Member For:

23.40 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

. if you can't distinguish between not carrying insurance and burning down someone's home, there is nothing to discuss.

You can just wallow in ignorance.

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

If I walk onto your land - tman MU - 1/4 10:44:58

You can't prove that was me(nm) - raskolnikov MU - 1/4 11:21:14

Now that was funny(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:26:06

The property owner, of course (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:15:40

the property owner, you idiot (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:07:35

God damn you are ignorant. (nm) - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:06:34

Can't have a discussion. Scream at the sky(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:07:32

your analogy would be apt if you asked "who is the victim - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:10:32

Neither side has to carry. It is all voluntary - tman MU - 1/4 11:13:26

You really struggle with the most basic of concepts (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:32:18

you're functionally retarded (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:23:26

person A destroyed person B's property in your example. - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:23:00

lol(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:14:16

The victim is the property owner. - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:09:03

No there isn't in a pickles case. The driver of that car - tman MU - 1/4 11:11:02

And in pickle's example there is no property destruction - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:16:57

you're literally too stupid to discuss this with, apparently - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:08:39

There is no victim in either case(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:09:55

RE: There is no victim in either case(nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:10:55

This isn’t the same as Pickle’s example - mizzouSECedes STL - 1/4 11:04:02

and step into a hole and break my ankle and sue you for - Tigrrrr! MU

- 1/4 11:03:46

The property owner. - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:01:37

How is he a victim. He wasn't physical harmed and - tman MU - 1/4 11:08:59

You're confusing being the victim of an act with how it - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:12:32

Because his property was destroyed. - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:11:53

I can't believe there is any bit of confusion about this (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:19:09

I am - El-ahrairah BAMA - 1/4 10:58:25

Me because you committed an intentional act that resulted - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 10:53:12

Wrong. There is no victim of my actions(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 10:57:00

You've infringed upon someone's property rights - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:26:52

RE: Wrong. There is no victim of my actions(nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:09:13

Yes there is. You're ignorant - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:07:06

Then you have a weird definition of victim* - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 10:59:34

Your insurance will cover it. - Spanky KU - 1/4 10:55:37

That's irrelevant as to whether I am a victim - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:00:23

your property was the victim.. you are fine - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:07:34

lol well not under the law - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:08:57

if anyone will be the victim, it is the insurance company - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:14:55

lol no. If you destroy my property, I am the victim - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:16:14

lighten up, Francis - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:20:15

Doubtful. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 10:56:59

Fire damage is insured - Spanky KU - 1/4 10:58:13

I think the insurance company would balk at arson. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 11:01:41

I don't think the property owner knew it was coming in the - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:03:09

Yeah, I introduced something that wasn't stated. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 11:05:34

I don't think the onus is on the homeowner to prove - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:06:50

No different than the car example below - tman MU - 1/4 10:58:04

No you are still a victim, regardless how you remedy the - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:01:38