Support NeoGAF

[IntentionalPun]

Are you devoid of discussion? What's not valid about it?

Like come on, we know exactly what “leaned too much in the direction of”… that means they were inappropriate. Just clown shoes to say otherwise.

 

[near]

The message to a minor should begin/end with "Thanks for your support".

I 100% agree with this, which is why he's actions are inexcusable. Having said that I don't feel like anything Doc has said substantiates the accusations. Also let’s just gloss over the fact that this DrWitness guy just highlighted Ninja saying ‘let me give you the glock glock 9000’ to a minor live on stream. But you choose to share he's tweet where NickMercs blocks him lol.

 

[SoullessApples]

Tell me you dont know the law and age of consent without telling me you dont know the law and age of consent.

Tell me your defending banging 17 years without telling me your defending banging 17 year olds

 

[Topher]

I 100% agree with this, which is why he's actions are inexcusable. Having said that I don't feel like anything Doc has said substantiates the accusations. Also let’s just gloss over the fact that this DrWitness guy just highlighted Ninja saying ‘let me give you the glock glock 9000’ to a minor live on stream. But you choose to share he's tweet where NickMercs blocks him lol.

Eh....I had to go back to the video to figure out what you are talking about because I stopped watching that nonsense long before he got to Ninja. So no...I did not "gloss over" anything, but Ninja doing something stupid doesn't change a thing as far as DrD is concerned. Two separate unrelated incidents. This is what you call "valid points"?

 

[near]

Eh....I had to go back to the video to figure out what you are talking about because I stopped watching that nonsense long before he got to Ninja. So no...I did not "gloss over" anything, but Ninja doing something stupid doesn't change a thing as far as DrD is concerned. Two separate unrelated incidents. This is what you call "valid points"?

You didn't finish the video because you're not actually open to viewing things from a different perspective. He highlights how easy it is to paint the narrative you want to read from Docs initial tweet. He defines the word inappropriate and provides basic examples of what could’ve been in those messages. He shares a clip of Ninja outright being disgustingly inappropriate towards a minor, but no one wants to bat an eye. It doesn’t matter if it's a separate incident, it's a clear example with evidence of inappropriate behaviour.

You don’t want to accept Doc's new statement with context as truth, but you’ll take he’s first statement and draw your own conclusion, and then say but he already admitted it, when it can be argued that he didn’t admit shit in the first place. Cody Connor's accusations are that he was sexting a minor and planned to meet them. Everyone believes this to be truthful because Doc admitted it in he’s first tweet? Lol I just find this all a little silly. If the only evidence there is against Doc is Doc's first tweet which doesn't actually corroborate the accusations, and the rest of the context he provides is dismissed then no one actually cares about the truth.

 

[Topher]

You didn't finish the video because you....

This isn't about me.

Believe what you want.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Tell me you dont know the law and age of consent without telling me you dont know the law and age of consent.

I think you're the one who doesn't know the law and age of consent, dude.

We already told you it doesn't matter what her jurisdiction is. For him, age of consent is 18. He can't go to a place where it's lower to engage with a person who is less than 18.

 

[near]

This isn't about me.

Believe what you want.

Sure, dismiss everything else I said and actually make this seem like a personal attack, a great way to deflect and avoid an actual discussion. You quoted my post and shared a tweet from the same user showing that NickMercs blocked him in an attempt to discredit he’s opinion. But it also turned out that you failed to watch the full clip initially when you said "because I stopped watching that nonsense long before he got to Ninja". All that tells me is “You didn't finish the video because you're not actually open to viewing things from a different perspective”. Lmao.

 

[Topher]

Sure, dismiss everything else I said and actually make this seem like a personal attack, a great way to deflect and avoid an actual discussion. You quoted my post and shared a tweet from the same user showing that NickMercs blocked him in an attempt to discredit he’s opinion. But it also turned out that you failed to watch the full clip initially when you said "because I stopped watching that nonsense long before he got to Ninja". All that tells me is “You didn't finish the video because you're not actually open to viewing things from a different perspective”. Lmao.

Because you are making this personal and I really do not understand why. I watched enough of that video to know that guy was full of shit. That Ninja reference did nothing but confirm that I was right in bailing on that video when I did. If you think he made some wonderful points then great. Obviously I don't. I posted that tweet of him getting blocked because I thought him calling out "false narratives" was hilarious. Being blocked doesn't discredit anything.

But yes, I'm going to dismiss everything you say going forward if you continue to make this personal. Up to you.

 

[The Cockatrice]

I think you're the one who doesn't know the law and age of consent, dude.

We already told you it doesn't matter what her jurisdiction is. For him, age of consent is 18. He can't go to a place where it's lower to engage with a person who is less than 18.

Tell me your defending banging 17 years without telling me your defending banging 17 year olds

 

[NecrosaroIII]

If what I said was incorrect, I invite you to counter what I said. Becuase the law and how it has been executed seems clear to me:

Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout the chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor;

 

[SoullessApples]

If what I said was incorrect, I invite you to counter what I said. Becuase the law and how it has been executed seems clear to me:

Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout the chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor;

You can’t help these people. No point wasting your time. A) they are stupid or B) they are attracted to minors and they are trying to defend each other. They need therapy.

 

[EviLore]

If what I said was incorrect, I invite you to counter what I said. Becuase the law and how it has been executed seems clear to me:

Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout the chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor;

In the US, for all intents and purposes, 18 is the age of consent and every American understands that. Federal law is limited such that it can only supersede state law under specific circumstances, though, such as when actions cross state lines, and each state has its own AoC law. So what Disrespect may have done could have been legal under state laws. Regardless, we have important social taboos about getting involved with underage individuals.


There are different laws and cultural standards around the world, but seeing as this is a US website and the case is concerning an American, we should not be veering into advocating for anything underage by US standards. Those discussions should be dropped.

 

[The Cockatrice]

(see above, moving on from discussion)

 

[Toons]

(see above, moving on from discussion)

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

See. Above.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Don't know if this was posted already.

 

[Moridianae]

The saddest part is despite him being an obvious creep, even without YT monetization he's made something like $25,000 in donations each time he's been on I read.

 

[G-DannY]

Don't know if this was posted already.

not posted probably because it is fake and misleading info

This clip is a bit misleading and lacks context. He enabled streamer mode before the match, no one knew he was there. one person left and after a few minutes when that person didnt come back, others left because they didnt want to waste time in an outnumbered game

but as this thread proves along, who cares about context anyway, right?

 

[Luipadre]

not posted probably because it is fake and misleading info



but as this thread proves along, who cares about context anyway, right?

Yeah another false narrative. Internet in 2024

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

not posted probably because it is fake and misleading info



but as this thread proves along, who cares about context anyway, right?

Well for context I really wasn't postulating anything about it, just throwing it up for the thread.

Thanks for the update about it though.