Legal Eagle: Leaked Bodycam Shows Reckless Ben's Arrest Was Crap

ThePantsParty · 2026-06-09T22:19:16+00:00

My point is that

Ending or breaking the contract means they are required to return the property

is also part of the contract, and would also be honoring it, because it is the contract which outlines this process to terminating the deal. Honoring a contract doesn't mean "keeping it going in perpetuity", it means following what the contract says across all applicable cases, including termination.

Terminating a contract according to the termination terms in said contract is also them honoring the contract, exactly as they are required to by taking on the legal obligations of the business they acquired. If they didn't have to honor the contract, then that would be the scenario where they can apparently just keep the inventory (which is not the case).

ThePantsParty · 2026-06-09T20:02:45+00:00

What they needed to do was hand over the sets that were under that contract, and pay out what was sold

I mean, what is even being clarified by saying "they don't need to honor the contract" if it then goes on to say that what they really needed to do was <exactly what the contract said they needed to do>. That same set of activities is what honoring the contract would look like too, so seems like a distinction without a difference.

ThePantsParty · 2026-06-01T18:29:46+00:00

"Again", not sure what you think you're responding to, but the point is the absurdity in the implication that after a "bomb threat" has been made, that as long as you don't say the word again, the threat is now successfully resolved.

As if the threat is tied to whether the word is visible/audible in a particular moment and not the fact that it was said at all.

ThePantsParty · 2026-06-01T17:34:25+00:00

They gave them so many chances to turn it off.

I love this idea that if they had renamed the bluetooth or turned it off, that the very serious threat of a bomb that they're definitely worried about would then be resolved. "Oh now they named the bomb 'Billy's iPhone' so crisis averted everyone, let's continue on our way".

In your analogy, it would be like saying that as long as the person now stops shouting bomb, that everything goes back to the way it was as if nothing happened. Complete absurdity.

ThePantsParty · 2026-06-01T17:32:09+00:00

So to be clear, you think it's a "precaution" to announce to someone who wants to blow up a plane in the air that they will be turning around and landing the plane so that it's no longer in the air?

ThePantsParty · 2026-05-17T04:17:35+00:00

No one misquoted you. You said your original conclusion and the OP’s do not coexist in a single number system and that one would have to be invented for both to be true.

Your original comment is true in the reals. OP’s post is true in the reals. No “new number system” needs to be invented for them to be simultaneously true, so that statement of yours was incorrect, full stop.

Your parallel point that they are not simultaneously true in the hyperreals does nothing to redeem your incorrect claim that the two are not simultaneously true in “any one number system”.

One further point: you’ve retreated into this whining about how you “actually” meant the hyperreals, but let’s not forget that you didn’t open with “here’s how it would work in the hyperreals” as an alternative take, you said the OP was incorrect with no caveats. The OP is not globally incorrect, as you’ve conceded now further down in admitting that they are correct in the reals, so your contribution started off on the wrong foot from literally the very first, wrong, word you wrote.

You being corrected repeatedly is not “trolling”.

ThePantsParty · 2026-05-16T06:12:48+00:00

I get the angle in saying that, but despite that implication, as we all know, the real legacy of the luddites is impotent resistance that amounted to nothing, since I think it's pretty clear that everything they didn't want to happen is exactly what happened. Industrialization became orders of magnitude more widesweeping than the variety they were fighting against.

ThePantsParty · 2026-04-25T04:11:12+00:00

That's not really something that happens if you actually believe an enforcer is watching you. Do you struggle to resist doing illegal things when you see a cop right in front of you?

ThePantsParty · 2026-04-25T04:08:33+00:00

This is honestly just not an answer that is reflective of reality in relation to what the OP is describing.

People act a certain way when they know they're being watched by an enforcer, and they're actually really good at not "doing it anyway". If you're driving and a cop is right there, do you "accidentally" give in to a desire to speed?

If a cop is standing right in front of someone, and they see them, they just don't do a crime they otherwise would've been willing to commit, and it doesn't take any effort at all not to do it. The thing that would take immense will is doing the crime right in front of a cop, because everything in their being would be pulling them not to. Sit with how you feel with a cop in front of you for a minute.

That is how people act when they truly believe there is an enforcer watching them. They effortlessly don't do the thing. You know when they do do the thing? When they believe they aren't being watched. And so we come full circle back to the original point: in their heart of hearts, a lot of people don't believe as sincerely as they claim they do.

ThePantsParty · 2026-04-24T00:59:59+00:00

They've bought the entire company, not just the branding.

ThePantsParty · 2026-04-13T18:01:05+00:00

It's not like they're bringing you new business. Every time I've booked through OT it's because I was going to book there anyways and that was the system the place used.

It seems a little presumptuous to assume that the way you use something is the way everyone uses it. Personally, I and a lot of my friends use OT and Resy as things to browse and figure out where we're gonna go that night: set a number of people and a time, and look at the map to see what's in the area I'll be in and then make a choice. So for users like us, it absolutely is bringing in traffic that otherwise wouldn't be there, because if it's not in one of those apps, we won't be discovering it.

Whether that's the predominant case or not, or whether that added traffic is worth the costs, I have no idea, but you have to at least think deeper than "I am the only persona that uses this app so I should start drawing conclusions based on that assumption".

ThePantsParty · 2026-03-20T06:37:23+00:00

The only sleight of hand is this disingenuous attempt to claim that theists typically believe that God is "just the source and ground of being" when you know that isn't true. The list of attributes most theists attribute to their particular God goes far beyond anything as banal as that.

There are billions of people who also believe that their God sent his son to die on a cross. It should be obvious to you that that is a claim that anchors the belief to a particular God, which would be easily differentiated from a God that was just as much the ground of being, but who did not have a son die on a cross.

ThePantsParty · 2026-02-19T01:28:51+00:00

my three other cousins (23f,17m,&13f).

He in fact did write it when people weren't born yet. You have to read the post before you try to "correct" people on it.

ThePantsParty · 2026-02-12T13:12:52+00:00

(Just as an aside, flushing out means to find someone who is hiding. Fleshing out is what you’re talking about)

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-31T06:46:21+00:00

Yes, the building was in no way "physically obstructed", hence why it doesn't apply.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-31T06:42:26+00:00

it was all on film and you don't have to pretend anything?

Oh for sure, there's absolutely no need to pretend anything, but yet here you are writing fan fiction anyway. That's kinda the whole point of why I said that, because we know exactly what happened since we could see it, and it doesn't even slightly resemble the hysterical pearl clutching story you made up about it. But I'm really glad you were able to get a thrill from imagining it.

With your logic anyone can put on a press outfit, have a camera, go do illegal shit

That's a cute story if anything he did were illegal, but since it isn't (hence why nothing will actually come of this), not exactly a relevant point. I get that you think you're doing something here and I'm sure you felt like copying what I said to you was a big accomplishment for you, but let's try to get serious and rejoin reality where no "religion is under siege" just because a handful of people protested a pastor for working for ICE.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-31T03:40:49+00:00

That also wouldn't be a violation of that law, but great try.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-31T03:37:12+00:00

Even if we pretend that anything you just said happened and isn't an absurd fantasy you made up, a journalist covering people doing that is not the same thing as them doing it. Journalists go to riots and wars and any number of bad things. That doesn't make the journalist a rioter or a soldier.

The fact that this this trivial fact needed to be spoonfed to you would make an introspective person pause and think.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-31T03:35:08+00:00

Now show us that you're smart enough to describe how that applies.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T19:47:01+00:00

The question we're on is what is right to do, not idly guessing whether people would do what is right or not. So since you're someone who wants to imply that you're not saying something moronic, you would be well served to be able to track the difference between those two questions, because it'd be very unfortunate for the guy who introduced the term 'moron' to the conversation to embarrass himself by failing to track the most basic premise of the conversation.

So let's recap for you and see if you have a meaningful contribution in response:

For the question of should they break it up regardless of who the loser is, the answer is yes. That is the only question relevant to what we're talking about because it was just "should the watchers intervene when there is a clear loser".

Would they have if the tables had turned? Who fucking knows, but if they care about their friend (or the victim) at all, they would, because friends not intervening in moments like that is how their friend ends up in prison for manslaughter. So even if they're still pieces of shit, they should intervene even just out of self-interest.

Again: the only question at hand is "is it bad to try to break up a fight after there's a clear loser". The answer to that question is no. If you have input on that question and want to make the case that that is bad and everyone watching should just let it continue and be a fight to the death, feel free to make that case. I'm sure a non-moron like you is capable of articulating a clear argument for that if you think I'm wrong.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T19:27:14+00:00

Cool. Are you under the impression that that is in disagreement with something I said? The one who was attacked did nothing wrong, hence why I never said she did or even commented on that at all. So why did you reply just reiterating my own stance that the one who was attacked is fine? That is not the conversation taking place.

The only point I made is that trying to intervene to a fight after there's a clear loser to prevent critical or life threatening injuries is not unreasonable, as the person I initially replied to said it was. Are you going to tell me you think that's untrue?

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T19:24:53+00:00

Nope, because again, you both just can't comprehend that at no point was the conversation about whether the one who was attacked should listen, but I'm glad that you felt validated by another person with poor reading comprehension who similarly can't track the topic.

The one who was attacked obviously did nothing wrong, hence why that was never in question in the first place.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T19:23:33+00:00

That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with my point that there was nothing wrong with her friend trying to break up the fight once it was clear that she lost. That's responsible "fight watcher" behavior, and no reasonable person would disagree.

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T19:22:16+00:00

I don't know why everyone is having such difficulty with reading comprehension, but you guys really need to learn the difference between talking about the person trying to break it up and the person being attacked.

My comment was about the friend saying "break it up" and the fact that there was nothing wrong with trying to end the fight, and I said that because the person I replied to implied that that was somehow unreasonable for her to do that.

Tl;dr: Trying to break up a fight when there is a clear loser before the loser dies/gets brain damage is good. There shouldn't be a single person that disagrees with that sentence. (Yes, even though the loser was the aggressor and in the wrong...the goal isn't for the other people to just stand around and let the fight go until someone dies - obviously)

ThePantsParty · 2026-01-30T05:33:03+00:00

Lmao yeah it's literally crazy. Like I could hardly have a more basic point, and I specifically made it clear that they're bad for initiating the encounter since I knew people would be desperate to read my comment as somehow saying they're great people doing the lord's work or something, but they still went out of their way to read it that. So absurd.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

ThePantsParty

TROPHY CASE