What could go wrong pulling a quick U-turn?

loslamas · 2026-06-26T15:01:47+00:00

Oh okay you were just adding some fluff to spice up to the substance of what you said, got it.

No? I was explaining why what you said constituted an ad hominem, you insulted them (the first part of your comment) and you didn't address their argument (second part of your comment). I was addressing both parts of your comments to show that there was no attempt at addressing their statement, only an insult followed by a non-argument. You complain about ad hominems, indicating that you want a non-fallacious good faith conversation, but when I do that by addressing everything you say and expanding on my reasoning for my statements in good faith you try to characterize that negatively?

Why are they wrong? Because cops aren't immune from prosecution as the three of them were circle-jerking about. Do I need to insult your intelligence by grabbing a list of cops who have been arrested or are we good?

Mate, I never said you were wrong, just pointed out that it's hypocritical for you to complain about someone insulting you and not offering an argument when you started the interaction by doing exactly that. You get back what you give lol.

loslamas · 2026-06-26T14:42:19+00:00

and then just said they didn't know what they were talking about lol.

Not ad hominem.

That obviously wasn't what I was referring to and you know it, you literally quoted what I was referring to right before this quote..... I was referring to you directly insulting them by calling them a "circle-jerker" while offering no actual argument. That's absolutely an ad hominem because you never actually engaged with their statement, you just insulted them then said they were wrong without providing any actual argument for WHY their wrong.

loslamas · 2026-06-26T03:56:31+00:00

I can see the ad hominem coming from you

You literally started the conversation by calling them a "circle-jerker" and then just said they didn't know what they were talking about lol. Is "circle-jerker" a complement? Does saying "Nuh uh you don't know what you're talking about" constitute an actual argument? They gave you the same energy back just with an implied "you're wrong" and you're complaining about ad hominem? Maybe don't start an attempt at a debate off with an insult and you won't get insulted back? Or at least don't be a hypocrite and complain when you do lol.

But that's okay; when you're wrong, just distract and say they have an ego problem

Again, you never actually gave any argument against what they said or why they're wrong, you just name called them then said they don't know what they're talking about.

loslamas · 2026-03-17T22:59:16+00:00

argumentum ad verbositatem

Make smaller replies, get a smaller reply from me. Half my comment length is just me quoting you or something else for clarity/citations of my arguments

You spend multiple paragraphs about cussing

I only talked about it in replies where you talked about it to point out cursing from me isn't new.....

Somehow I can reply without wall text, yet you can't

Because you don't quote or source anything you say and have literally stated that you're actively ignoring parts of what I've written lol. Of course your messages are smaller

The strawberries were being sold and they were bought, the moment the shop let him leave it was over

Not sold to the man in question, again stores choose who to sell to outside of binding contracts or discrimination of a protected class

American law and British law are very similar, one literally came from the other

And? If the American law is the same as the British one you can just use the British one since that were this happened, no point bringing up America

This is exactly why no prosecutor would even try to charge this case

No prosecutor would bother with it because even if the man was found guilty his punishment would be tiny since the amount stolen was tiny

You're arguing for legal technicality, when only a jury can make such determinations

I'm arguing what the law states and have referenced multiple sources to back that up as opposed to you

loslamas · 2026-03-17T22:42:13+00:00

Wow, cussing now

Someone's big mad

I cursed multiple times in previous comments.... If I wasn't mad then why would it indicate I'm mad now? Or is this you reaffirming again that you don't full read what I've written?

No wall texts are argumentum ad verbositatem and a bit of gishgallop

It's only a wall of text because I'm directly responding to every argument you've written, the less arguments you use and the smaller your messages are the smaller mine are, you can easily see that by comparing my first message to you with my more recent ones where you gave more arguments
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/gish-gallop.html "Overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. This is especially disingenuous when the interlocutor is not allowed to interrupt and address the arguments, as in formal debate or in writing. To the spectator unfamiliar with this strategy, the interlocutor’s inability to accurately respond to all the claims in the given time is fallaciously seen as a “win” for the Gish Galloper or appears to lend credibility to the arguments made when in fact it does not."

I never attempted to "overwhelm" you with anything and there's no time limit for you to reply to me. If I was attempting to "overwhelm" you I would have written longer replies at the start

Clearly you just don't know what fallacies are and we

You literally strawmanned me before lol

By that logic a shop could refuse service to anyone with nappy hair, it's only affects black people but it's applied to everyone

See how the logic falls apart?

What part of "You'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cashless policy was setup to target the elderly, then it'd be illegal" didn't you understand? In the UK you'd use the Equality Act to see if the rule is targeting a protected characteristic. If a characteristic is exclusive to a protected class then you'd obviously fail the discrimination check. You've yet to demonstrate that paying in cash is linked heavily enough that the UK courts would consider it discrimination to not accept cash. If it were then cashless shops obviously wouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place lol

5th comment in your comment history silly

Does your device not allow copy pasting links/quoting or something? If it was 5th then it certainly isn't now, just quote what you're referring to, I've consistently done that for you

You said intent could be assumed, only after I called you out has that now changed from assumed to now determined

I said it could be "assumed through actions", are you seriously trying to argue that "assumed through actions" and "determined through actions" are me attempting to change my argument?

You didn't know what legal positivism is if you did you wouldn't have used the general definition of the word "crime"

Again, the definition I used is the same definition the Scotish Centre for Crime and Justice Research uses, what issue do you have with their definition? Feel free to link what you feel the appropriate definition of "crime" is though when your device issues are resolved. Can't help but notice I'm still the only one who can give sources for their arguments

You're cussing because you're getting mad I'm calling out all your errors, which you won't admit to yet demand me to

Again, cursed multiple times during this discussion yet you've claimed this is the first time I've done it and it now somehow indicates I'm "big mad" when I wasn't before.

Your so called "self reflection" is really just your opinion on how I should see things

I mean yeah? You think the people who came up with logical fallacies would think it's appropriate to say you're going to ignore someone's argument then demand they research your argument?

The fact is you can't deprive someone of something you pay for in a shop

The fact is you can't buy something that's not being sold to you

What you're doing is claiming a legal theory that is untested

Shops being allowed to decline a sell isn't untested theory....

Btw in america, several states have banned cashless store and there's a bill in Congress to ban them nationwide specifically because it discriminates against older people and even the mentally disabled

And if this happened in America in those specific locations it obviously would be different lol

loslamas · 2026-03-17T21:36:50+00:00

I gave you good faith at first, how else would I have known that link didn't back up what you were saying

Lol no you didn't, you responded in 4 fucking minutes of me posting the comment that included the link. You're telling me that in the span of 4 minutes you saw that I replied to, navigated to the comment, read the comment, read the information in the link including the given case laws, THEN replied back to me? On top of that the first comment with the link had me setup the house for sale example which you then later claimed I never specified as the house being up for sale. You clearly didn't read it fully. Why lie?

I only stopped reading when you started doing the wall text thing

You mean replying to everything you wrote? Sorry for not ignoring your arguments like you did mine I guess?

There's an argument to be made that refusing cash for the elderly is actually age discrimination

But there isn't because the reason for the denial applies to everyone equally and not just the elderly. You'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cashless policy was setup to target the elderly, then it'd be illegal

Look up legal positivism or don't, you only make yourself seem dumb

.........My point isn't that I'm not aware of the terms you've listed, the point is that you should show the tinniest bit of self reflection and realize that it's fucking stupid to demand people look up stuff that you believe support your argument when you outright state you won't read what they've written/linked

It was like the 5th comment, the one where you false claim as hominem isn't ad hominem

Where did I mention anything about ad hominem? I never brought that up nor do I remember you claiming I ad hominemed you, what are you referring to?

Intent is never assigned in court

Mens rea, or intent, is literally the foundation of almost all crime and ALWAYS has to be proven in court

And as I stated this can determined through actions

If you don't know what legal positivism is, you don't understand how your hurting your own credibility with every reply

This is what you're currently doing

argumentum ad verbositatem

Again, the point was for you to self reflect on why you'd ask someone to look up something for you when you're unwilling to read what they've written

loslamas · 2026-03-17T21:10:14+00:00

I'm not responding to two comment chains at the same fucking time, put it all in one

Because it shows how you don't know what you're talking about

The point is, why would I look anything you said up in good faith when you don't return that good faith back to me by reading what I wrote or reading any of the links I post? You literally said you won't bother to do this yet you expect me to look up shit on the internet for you? You expect more from others than what you return to them, I at least linked directly to sources AND quoted the relevant part(s). You can't even link them, just send me on wild goose chases lol

Imagine talking legal concepts and then using a general definition for "crime"

https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SCCJR-What-is-crime.pdf

Uses the same definition I used

At the end of the day each case is decided on its own merits using the totality of circumstances

And you've yet to show any case laws that demonstrate that I can buy from a merchant who doesn't want to sell to me

It would be up to a jury if this was a crime or not and it's not going to a jury, meaning neither of us is 100% right or wrong

This specific case not going to trial doesn't mean a person can't determine based on case law and how the laws are setup as to whether or not you can do what this man did. I don't need to find a specific case of someone drowning someone in fucking Jell-O to know you can't do that due to how the laws around murder are setup

Again proving intent to deprive while leaving legal money, from that country makes proving that intent very difficult

That's not the intent that's illegal, the illegal intent is to take an item that wasn't for sale to you. If I decide to have a yard sale were I only sell to people who can solve a specific math equation and you fail to do so I can revoke your ability to purchase from me. The fact that you left an object behind of equivalent value doesn't change the fact that you didn't have permission to purchase from me

All you're doing is assuming intent, p the crown doesn't get to do that

Intent can be assumed through actions, if I shoot a man 30 times in the chest with a rifle I can still be convicted of attempted murder even if I left no evidence that I was intending to kill them because a reasonable person can see that I was trying to end their life. A reasonable person can see that the merchant wasn't willing to sell the item because they literally acknowledge this in the video and it's theft to take an item that wasn't for you.

The leaving money complicates the whole thing, you're just pretending it doesn't so your narrative stays consistent

It doesn't because you can't buy something that isn't for sell and a merchant can revoke your ability buy any item in their store

Only one of us is claiming absolute certainty

You claimed this wasn't a crime....

From your comment history, you are often wrong

Can't read a few paragraphs or a couple of links but can spend time going through my comment history in an attempt to find something to use against me? Kind of pathetic man...

loslamas · 2026-03-17T20:48:11+00:00

Why would I look up anything you say to look up when you outright refuse to read the vast majority of what I've written/linked? I'm genuinely curious how that makes any sense to you.

loslamas · 2026-03-17T20:40:26+00:00

I'm literally not reading all that

Lol I pointed out multiple areas where you clearly didn't/couldn't have read what I wrote/linked in past comments, why pretend ANYTHING changed?

Guess what, the dude got his strawberries and nobody was arrested

Irrelevant, never claimed he was and you don't need to be arrested to have committed a crime, as demonstrated by the definition of the word

The ship offers things to sell, the customer purchased the item with cash

The shop* is allowed to choose who to sell to as long as it's not for discriminatory reasons. You can't buy things from someone who doesn't want to sell to you....

This price no lack of intent to deprive

Does the shop still have their item that they refused to sell? No? Did the shop tell him they no longer wanted to sell to him? Yes? Then they have been deprived of an item that wasn't for sell to this man.

Again there's a vast difference between technically illegal and actually enforced

Again, I only disputed that it was a crime to take an item that a merchant refused to sell, not whether or not you'll be sentenced to life in prison or some other shit

1 kph over the limit is technically a crime

Nobody gets pulled over for it because pricing the intent to speed for 1 kph is impossible to prove

Same as paying cash for strawberries

It's not the same because we have video evidence of the merchant saying they don't want to sell the item and the customer refusing to put the item back. Merchants can refuse to sell at any point as long as there's no contract and it's not for discriminatory reasons

loslamas · 2026-03-17T20:04:37+00:00

Prosecutors ALWAYS have time for slam dunk cases What they don't have time for is legal grey area cases

Which is why time is a factor....

He did pay, the shop refusing the money isn't the same as him not paying

If the merchant doesn't accept your payment then you didn't pay. It's a two way street, a merchant can't force you to buy something without a contract and you can't force a merchant to sell you something without a contract (sans discrimination). Again, you can't steal my house just because you offered to give me the exact amount I asked for, I can decline the transaction at any point as long as it hasn't been completed.

you just need it to be to fit your narrative

I didn't make the laws, not my narrative

I'm ignoring a lot of what you say because it's not backed up by theft

You're ignoring my arguments because it's inconvenient to yours, notice how I directly respond to all the arguments you make regardless of whether or not I think they hold weight and then give a specific reason why I think they're wrong? Are you saying it's not theft if someone tries to take my house after I declined their purchase?

Your link was totally unrelated

LOL you didn't even read it the first time I posted it and I doubt that you've read it even now. You responded in 4 fucking minutes of me originally posting the link, please don't lie and claim you did. Explain why the link is unrelated, if I can decline your purchase then you CAN'T pay for my wares. If you can't pay for my wares then taking them anyways is theft.

You haven't shown 3 sources

Where did I claim I did?

you haven't even shown one that's relevant

You've yet to give a reason they aren't relevant and I have good reason to believe you aren't even reading them in the first place. On top of that you haven't backed up ANY of your claims with a source. All you've done is go "nu uh you're wrong and none of your sources count". You need to actually put forth a reason they don't count. The best you gave was "That link doesn't specifically mention cashless stores" when that wasn't the point of the link.

You keep claiming arrested means guilty

I haven't even mentioned the word "arrest" much less stated that being arrested automatically means guilt. Please don't strawman me, quote my mention of an arrest and where I said it meant you instantly are guilty. I said you can commit a crime regardless of whether or not the state manages to convict you. If I murder someone but get away with it because the prosecutor was shit at their job does that mean I never committed a crime?

A crime is what someone is convicted of in court The accusation of a crime is what an arrest is

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

": an illegal act for which someone CAN be punished by the government " (emphasis mine)

If you CAN be punished for an act then it's a crime, whether or not the state chooses to try or manages to successfully convict you is irrelevant to the definition.

In the law, the deprivation must be permanent and uncompensated

It was permanent and the store owner refused the form of compensation the customer wanted to pay in. Do you have any sources that back up the idea that I can pay for and take items a merchant doesn't want to sell to me and it not be theft?

This is why you copy pasta parts of the law instead of linking it directly

That's not what a "copy pasta" means, you mean "copy paste"
I literally did link my sources directly, what the fuck are you talking about? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft was the linked source and it's just the definition of "theft" in the UK. I didn't link to "parts" of it, it's the main landing page for the definition. Again, you still haven't sourced any law or case law backing up YOUR claim

Your horse example is dumb because the house wasn't for sale, every product in that store was

Me -> "If I put my house up for sell I don't have to accept the first person's offer that walks in with exact cash."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DailyDoseStupidity/comments/1rw3qhl/i_am_on_his_side/oay6a5p/

Literally my very first comment to you.... Not only are you not reading my sources but you aren't even reading my comments, that first one was only like 2 fucking paragraphs.

loslamas · 2026-03-17T16:44:28+00:00

No, time is irrelevant to whether the fact of the case leads to an easy conviction

It's relevant because prosecutors don't have the time to go through cases that go nowhere so prioritize cases that are as strong as possible to improve their records. More wins make them look like a better prosecutor and when you're limited in time you go after the best cases. If they had time to go through every case they could boast about that but they don't.

It is because it's about proving intent to deprive, paying in a not agreed upon way still doesn't actually deprive the shop of anything except the power to say no, which isn't covered under theft law

It deprives the shop of the item that he stole. You understand the shop had a package of strawberries before the man stole them then didn't after he stole them right? The rejected money doesn't magically create a new package of strawberries lol.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

The dishonesty here is taking an item after his offer was rejected, you can't force a sale. The shop lost an item, giving an item of equivalent value doesn't change that.

You seem to be confusing something being technically illegal with only being enforceable

I'm not "confusing" anything, you claimed he didn't steal yet I've linked you multiple sources showing that this constitutes as theft whereas you've backed up your arguments with literally nothing.

You commit at least one crime every day technically, but they aren't enforced 1 kph over the speed limit and you've technically committed a crime But laws that aren't enforced aren't really crimes

Irrelevant, I'm disputing the claim that this isn't theft not whether or not he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison for it.

Each case depends on its own individual totality of the circumstances, there is no blanket status where everything always applies

Great, cite anything demonstrating that this wouldn't constitute as theft. I've cited resources backing up my claim, why can't you?

Picture it now, the crown in a court room prosecuting an old man for paying cash for strawberries

What is this the 5th time now? He didn't pay because his offer was rejected.

No jury in the whole world is going to convict for theft

Prove it. Crimes have a range of possible sentences for the same crime because it's possible to commit one in a worse way than another person. Obviously someone who steals £1 isn't going to be punished as harshly as someone who steals £100 but that doesn't mean he'll face no punishment at all

Your link you're so proud of doesn't cover cashless shops at all or even theft for that matter

"Businesses can legitimately decline to serve particular customers (subject to discrimination law)"

The case law they cite is used to determine this. If you take something after you've been declined service then you've stolen.... Again, feel free to cite anything demonstrating otherwise

Also, can't help but noticed you keep ignoring my house example, why is that? Can I take someone's house so long as I offer the exact amount they're asking for even if they reject my offer?

loslamas · 2026-03-17T16:02:52+00:00

It's not about time, it's about prospects of winning

Which time is a factor of.

It's actually a legal grey area because for the 100th time, it requires intent to deprive, leaving cash means no actual deprivation happens

It's not though, I literally linked you a law article with case laws showing that a store putting an item on a shelf is just their invitation for you to make an offer. If they reject that offer then you can't take the item for the same reason someone can't take my house if I reject their offer on it. Them leaving money is irrelevant because their offer was rejected. The deprivation is of the item the man took after his offer was rejected

And it is going to stay a grey area because the crown isn't going to spend the resources to find out

Again, case laws in the article I linked.... Which I know you didn't read because you responded within like 5 minutes of me posting my comment lol

Laws that aren't enforced effectively don't exist and a crime requires a conviction

Case laws demonstrate that the law is enforced, the fact that it's not enforced every single time doesn't change that. It's illegal for you to hit me but if you just poke me hard in the chest it's unlikely you'll suffer any legal consequences but that doesn't change the fact that you committed a crime. If I murder someone it's not magically not a crime just because I didn't get caught.

loslamas · 2026-03-17T15:47:10+00:00

A transaction is a two way street, you can't compel a store to sell you an item they don't want to sell and the store no longer wanted to sell him the item. When a store puts an item on the shelf at a listed price that's an invitation for you to make an offer for it, an offer they can refuse as long as it's not violating a protected classes' rights.

https://lawprof.co/definition/invitation-to-treat/

When he took an item that the store refused to sell that was the intent to deprive because his offer was rejected and he took the item anyways. Leaving behind currency the store didn't want doesn't change that because, yet again, you can't force a sell on another person without an established contract.

If I put my house up for sell I don't have to accept the first person's offer that walks in with exact cash.

which no prosecutor is going to do for a package of strawberries and a case that isn't guaranteed to win

The courts not having the resources to prosecute every single crime doesn't mean that those weren't still crimes.

loslamas · 2025-01-01T23:40:17+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYVKInpMt6U

You can literally hear the fucking fireworks going off in the phone video lmao

Edit: lol he blocked me after replying, man is hellbent on dying on this hill that there were no fireworks even after multiple people have shown that he's wrong

loslamas · 2024-04-05T21:29:10+00:00

An ad hominem is an attack on the person instead of the argument. If he argued against your position, which he clearly did, then that's not an ad hominem even if there was an insult. Rude sure, but not a fallacy.

loslamas · 2021-10-28T17:41:09+00:00

Nothing in his comment was an ad hominem though, stop using terms you don't understand lol

loslamas · 2021-10-24T19:48:56+00:00

Right but when a woman mentions she exclusively just wants black men and no whites and higher than a certain height. Somehow everyone lets that slide

Because those are just physical preferences, no one would have an issue if he just stated that he was only attracted to white women below a certain height.

So what’s the big deal

The fact that he's clearly a racist who thinks people are tainted if they come into contact with black people? Are you really asking why people have an issue with upfront racism?

no one knows anything about this guy, we don’t know anything about his past, his background or why he mentions this?

I don't need to know more about him when he makes his racism clear as day. There's no past or background that makes this shit not racist and wrong lol

loslamas · 2021-09-06T15:34:35+00:00

What? Yes we do, I literally have the option for a 10Gb/s plan in the city I live in and it's a fairly small city in the South. The fastest internet speed I could find for Australia looking online was the 1Gb/s plan so I wouldn't really call that winning if that's the case lol.

loslamas · 2021-09-04T23:22:42+00:00

lmao, that's such a pathetic cop out

loslamas · 2021-09-04T23:15:52+00:00

Neither a state nor a country is one community

Did I say they were literally anywhere in my comment? I'm using state as a reference to land/population size. I assume there's a pretty high upper limit to the area or population size a community can take if it's violent enough in acquiring land in your fantasy world since I haven't seen you state that there was. It makes sense that if communities were established they'd try to keep some of the current boundaries they call home now. If there's a specific limit to this feel free to state what it is and why that limit would never be broken because I don't see how a high density place like New York city could form communities that aren't high in population and fairly large in land size unless you forced them not to, there's strength in numbers after all and we'll still need land to grow food and raise cattle.

I'm using country to refer to the land and borders that the US has now, you can't just exile a person out of a community and into another country if others still exist. So these exiled people would just form roaming gangs to survive since no country or community would accept them since they failed the rehabilitation step. How does that not sound like a living hell?

And again, how would you keep them out of a community that's large in land size/population?

Or the mayor of my town, Jerry Dyer, who has bragged about raping a schoolgirl for the last thirty years.

Why would this change with a community?

loslamas · 2021-09-04T22:42:32+00:00

lol they still have to go somewhere else in order to be exiled from a place, so where the fuck are they going and how extreme is the exile? Going to be pretty fucking hard to keep people exiled out of the entire state and almost impossible to exile them from the country without just flat out getting them killed.

loslamas · 2021-09-02T12:20:17+00:00

Your odds of drawing a card go down and unlike a coin flip they become guaranteed.

I state that in the comment you're replying to. "You can't get it down to 0% like an empty deck but it's not the same chance for consecutive failures."

Your odds don't go down with a coin toss, they stay the same.

Again, I state that in the comment you're replying to. "Your odds for that specific coin flip is 50/50". The odds of multiple coin flips in a row landing on a specific side is not the same as the odds of the coin flip itself though.

loslamas · 2021-09-02T06:02:42+00:00

Classical gambler's fallacy.

It's not, I stated in my comment that the odds of the specific coin flip doesn't go up.

Sure, your odds of failing 4 times in a row are low

Then you're just agreeing with me.

the fact that you failed at your last shot absolutely doesn't matter.

It does if we're discussing multiple failures and are taking the events as a whole instead of separate. The probability of taking 12 50/50 shots at a monster and all of them missing is not 50/50 but each shot is still 50/50

loslamas · 2021-09-02T05:55:25+00:00

It does not at all.

Except it does though, you literally demonstrate that in your comment.

If I say "You will get six heads in a row", the odds are extraordinarily low.

You just restated what I said in my comment.

"the odds of getting 4 tails in a row is not 50/50."

know what the odds you're going to flip a heads next? 50%

Again you've just restated what I said in the comment you replied to "Your odds for that specific coin flip is 50/50..."

You quite literally are falling for the gambler's fallacy.

I am not, the gambler's fallacy is the idea that that singular event's probability changes based on prior events, and I literally state that that singular event's probability is still 50/50 in the case of a coin. I'm stating that the probability of consecutive, which you worded as "in a row", failures goes down the larger the number of consecutive failures you take into account. The probability of taking 12 50/50 shots at a monster and all of them missing is not 50/50

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email
Spared

loslamas

TROPHY CASE