Sadly it’s not rare at all for him, hence the fact he’ll be creating his 4,728rd account today.

Which was another lie because the law says he has to be visible to the public. Imagine how sad he was when he realized he couldn’t get away with showing his d!ck to little kids walking by.


But give it a few years and I’m sure it’ll be perfectly legal in beaverville.

Law was posted. Shirtless, inside your own home, with curtain open can be charged if someone complains.

Seems there might be some complainers ITT.

In the end, you agreed it's bad law.


It's one of many we have on the books

Me thinks that JLC desperately wants to enter a woman's locker room, and flash the females, especially the children.

Correction - a law was posted. But the law that was posted did not prove that you can be "arrested for being naked in your own home" as you claimed.



Edit : Sorry, it was "charged", not "arrested". Aside from that minor detail, my point still stands.

Nope.

Probably because I never that claim

Fake quotes are intellectually honest?

Wanna borrow my trench coat wincel? You'd look stylish AF wearing that on a date with your new GF... She might even let you buy her a few more expensive gifts.

Nudity

174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,

(a) is nude in a public place, or

(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Nude

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-174.html


Indecent acts

173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Exposure

(2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person who is under the age of 16 years

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 30 days.


https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-173.html


As stated, separate laws.

"so clad as to offend public order". Vague, subjective, bad law.

Possibly acceptable to puritans, but open to abuse, imo.

Interesting.

Right here:I will accept your apology now.

See law above. My claim is supported.

The word "arrested" does not appear. You posted a fake quote. Apparently honest depending on who does it

Attempting to distort continues.

As I said previously: lulzy? Yes. Getting stale? Also yes.

Him and z3 would make a great tag team act

Interesting.Waiting to see you point out how you "never made that claim".

or apologize for claiming it was a "fake quote".

I did not claim I'd be arrested.

I said "I could be charged". You shared my actual quote. Didn't read it?

Lol

And I edited my post before you responded that it was a fake quote, to "charged". You even quoted my edit. Didn't read it?

Lol

Waiting to see you point out how you "never made that claim".

or apologize for claiming it was a "fake quote".

My claim was the actual text I wrote, you found it.

It's supported by the law posted above.

With what do you disagree or take issue?

So you did in fact claim that "you can be charged for being naked in your own home" as I edited my post to before you responded to it, claiming that was a fake quote?

Can you point out how you "never made that claim", or are you going to apologize for claiming it was a "fake quote"?

We need to get that out of the way before we go any further.

Still lulzy tho

If you want to play this silly game:Those are the actual words and your two attempts to use "arrested" in place of "charged". Since we're doing this silly semantics dance, do you acknowledge those words are not interchangeable in a legal context?

Regardless of red herrings, my claim (the words I actually wrote) is supported by the (poorly written) law.

lulzy indeed

Yes, those words are not interchangeable in a legal context - I corrected the quote once I looked it up. And that correction happened before you claimed it was a "fake quote".

Interesting to see how you had to omit a part of a post to make it work, here's the full quote of my second post:Also, you had to change the order of posts to make it look better, here's the actual order:So again...

I made a mistake, apologized and corrected it. After I apologized and corrected it, you called what I corrected to, a "fake quote".

Are you ready to apologize for calling it a "fake quote", or are you going to point out how it was a "fake quote"?

Still lulzy tho

But correcting mistakes with edits is frowned upon as dishonest, no?

You still made up a fake quote in the original post (which is still there within the quotation marks) and the preceding one that inaccurately stated my claim. Unless you are indeed trying to argue that charged and arrested are interchangeable terms.

The lulzy part is that all of this is yet another genetic (ad hominem) fallacy that some of y'all rely on rather than engaging in discussion.

I didn't "make up a fake quote", I remembered wrong. I looked it up, realized my mistake, and edited the post. I edited in a way that it can be seen that I edited it - so as not to hide my mistake in an effort to be intellectually honest. Some people prefer to hide their mistakes, I just hold myself above that, that is why the original quote is still there.

You have claimed that it was a "fake quote" after I made my edit - you can't dispute this since you literally quoted the edit.

The lulzy part is that the entire "charged" vs. "arrested" is the real red herring, not the fact that I am calling you out for once again prove yourself to be completely comfortable in playing semantics instead of engaging in discussion.

You could have admitted several posts ago that your "fake quote" claim was misplaced, just like how I admitted that I was wrong, and the original quote was "charged" and not "arrested", and we could have moved on.

But please, feel free to keep demonstrating just how intellectually dishonest you are.

Still lulzy tho



Edit : Here it is again, can be clearly seen you called the corrected quote a "fake quote"

It was still a fake paraphrase and fake quote. You corrected one, thanks

The genetic fallacy is the "oh yeah, well look what he said before about something else!"

The lulzy part is you posted my actual statement, which remains congruent with the current law

You called it a "fake quote" after I corrected it.

Are you ready to admit that your "fake quote" claim was misplaced?

Or are you going to keep doubling down onyourad hominem?

As for what is "congruent with current law", we can start that discussion once you either show me how it was a "fake quote" at the time of your claim ( after the correction), or apologize for claiming it was a "fake quote".

At least now I know why you prefer to do ghost edits - to hide your mistakes so you won't have to own up to them. Some of us have no problem admitting that we made a mistake, like I did earlier in the thread.

Still lulzy tho

It's nice to see that SOME people have integrity. Apparently that isn't part of the beavercel moral framework.

Listen, son. You never have admitted you were wrong; you just vanish like a virgin on prom night when you get soul-crushed.

It's pretty lulzy that it takes place in this thread given the original topic

It is important to remember that a person claiming to have a PhD and a lucrative career has resorted to creating that account and posting these posts.

Tell us something we didn't already know.

And yes, we already know you jerk off to cartoons.

You're not even being original: