Do you want to see Conor McGregor fight again?

[aogiri]

No. He will look like shit. He's been washed for years and clearly doesn't train seriously.

Conor has to main ppvs which means no champ fights can be under him. Fuck that

 

[PaulieVegas27]

I'm already watching him fight his demons. And it looks like he's doing as good a job as he did against Khabib,

 

[Dana's Moonface]

They are both pieces of shit and have been for a long time. I honestly think Jon is a worse person, but that is just me.

Worse than conor? Not even close but I will respect your opinion

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

It's not my fault you are functionally illiterate

No, she remembers McGregor raping her. So you even read the replies to your questions? Can you actually read?

Yep, that's what you are, among other things

I have never reported you, because you don't matter.

Is the BBC article so inconvenient for your little virtue signalling mob that you need to behave like that?

Calling me names won‘t change anything to its content.

Oh and on reporting, if you are going to behave like a bitch, at least own it. In the end you are a garbage account hiding behind a lot of gesticulations.

 

[DrRodentia]

They are both pieces of shit and have been for a long time. I honestly think Jon is a worse person, but that is just me.

Conor buries Jon when it comes to doing crimes/being a bad person. And Jon is not a good person.

 

[BabyBlue_Bomber]

It’s always fun seeing him lose…

 

[lsa]

Yes, vs. Ngannou

for free..
By that I mean Conors pay out goes to charity.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Inconveniently that‘s not what the BBC article is saying. And at best it implies she doesn‘t even remember who she fucked that night.

„Rape apologist“ yeah of course you have a word for that, LMAO. You are a laughing stock around here. Go ahead and report me as you always do.

Let's clear up a few things.

First off, you're saying that "at best, it implies she doesn't remember who she fucked." Now, I'm gonna assume you mean that was because of her being inebriated, yeah? Guess what you call sex with someone so inebriated that they can't remember? ... Yeah, that's called "rape." They can't functionally consent. Are you aware of that? You just said that at best, it implies he raped her.

But it's ok, because James didn't rape her. You see, the article says the jury found Lawrence didn't assault her... That's all it says on the matter. YOU are the one who believes that means consensual sex. You know what it can also mean? They didn't have sex. There wasn't any evidence that happened.

For instance, a jury would find that I didn't assault her either, cuz we never had sex. Me being in a completely different country kinda helps my defense there. But you can bet someone would try to sue you for rape if you insisted you had sex with them without their knowledge and they believed it was possible. So of course she sued him too, and that's how we got here.

Still with us? See how you're still projecting assumptions and that's why people are insulting you? You can keep asking questions to pretend like you're approaching this with a healthy level of skepticism, but the fact is you keep defaulting to disbelief. That's not analyzing things with skepticism.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Let's clear up a few things.

First off, you're saying that "at best, it implies she doesn't remember who she fucked." Now, I'm gonna assume you mean that was because of her being inebriated, yeah? Guess what you call sex with someone so inebriated that they can't remember? ... Yeah, that's called "rape." They can't functionally consent. Are you aware of that? You just said that at best, it implies he raped her.

But it's ok, because James didn't rape her. You see, the article says the jury found Lawrence didn't assault her... That's all it says on the matter. YOU are the one who believes that means consensual sex. You know what it can also mean? They didn't have sex. There wasn't any evidence that happened.

For instance, a jury would find that I didn't assault her either, cuz we never had sex. Me being in a completely different country kinda helps my defense there. But you can bet someone would try to sue you for rape if you insisted you had sex with them without their knowledge and they believed it was possible. So of course she sued him too, and that's how we got here.

Still with us? See how you're still projecting assumptions and that's why people are insulting you? You can keep asking questions to pretend like you're approaching this with a healthy level of skepticism, but the fact is you keep defaulting to disbelief. That's not analyzing things with skepticism.

„She alleged that he assaulted her by having sex with her without her consent in the Beacon Hotel.“

So the above sentence from the BBC article is her sort of saying „well if we fucked then I don‘t remember so it must have been rape“?

Thank you for remaining analytical about this and not posturing like that resident Karen imbecile.

 

[JPOMMA]

I want to see leaked videos of him fighting prison guards, and read repeated stories of him being kept in isolation 23 hrs a day. If anything will torture that little shit stain, him having noone to talk to or listen to all day but himself would really grind that man to tears.

 

[JPOMMA]

„She alleged that he assaulted her by having sex with her without her consent in the Beacon Hotel.“

So the above sentence from the BBC article is her sort of saying „well if we fucked then I don‘t remember so it must have been rape“?

Thank you for remaining analytical about this and not posturing like that resident Karen imbecile.

Urgh, I know I’m gonna get stoned for this (and not the good kind). But can someone explain to me the legal and moral reasoning of being responsible for some things while drunk and being a victim in others?

Drink too much & drive and have an accident = you’re a POS and go to jail. Drink too much & party and get taken advantage of (theft, rape, etc.) = it’s not your fault. I don’t really understand the lack of consistency in terms of personal responsibility.

Shouldn’t laws encourage people NOT to be so drunk that they don’t know what they are doing? One time they might sexo but the next they might drive, so it’s never a good idea to be that drunk? Alright let the name-calling begin. To be clear I’m not defending or accusing anyone.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

„She alleged that he assaulted her by having sex with her without her consent in the Beacon Hotel.“

So the above sentence from the BBC article is her sort of saying „well if we fucked then I don‘t remember so it must have been rape“?

Thank you for remaining analytical about this and not posturing like that resident Karen imbecile.

Yeah. So basically, she was originally pressing charges on Conor, but Lawrence came out saying he also had sex with her. This would obfuscate her story and make it less believable. Not sure when he came out with it, but if he did it when the criminal charges were originally being sought, it could have helped factor into why they dropped the case. It's part of why one of the key moments in the civil case was when Conor was pressed on and hesitant about the fact he was also paying Lawrence's attorneys. She was all beat up, and had her tampon lodged inside her and had Conor's DNA in her after sex with him, but supposedly had sex with James after in that state and no DNA? Sure, it's possible she was still up for it and he could have wrapped it, but in that state, a condom almost certainly wouldn't have been at her behest. Thoughts are, investigations started on Conor, so he dropped some cash on his friend to jump into the story to add someone to his side and make her look worse, so when the criminal case didn't go through, she went the civil route and, as you said, "I don't remember that, but if it did happen, then you raped me too."

*Edit* I think I found an article a day or two ago where they didn't just phrase it as "The jury found he didn't assault her" to implying the jury didn't find the events likely, I'll see if I can grab it when I'm back on the computer, but I'm bedbound for a bit. The mix of anesthesia and meds from last night still got me kinda fucked up

 

[Dana's Moonface]

Urgh, I know I’m gonna get stoned for this (and not the good kind). But can someone explain to me the legal and moral reasoning of being responsible for some things while drunk and being a victim in others?

Drink too much & drive and have an accident = you’re a POS and go to jail. Drink too much & party and get taken advantage of (theft, rape, etc.) = it’s not your fault. I don’t really understand the lack of consistency in terms of personal responsibility.

Shouldn’t laws encourage people NOT to be so drunk that they don’t know what they are doing? One time they might sexo but the next they might drive, so it’s never a good idea to be that drunk? Alright let the name-calling begin. To be clear I’m not defending or accusing anyone.

Well drinking and driving causes great risk, not only to yourself, but to others. Your reflexes are well numbed and you could potentially kill innocents, so yeah it's an extremely serious crime

On the other hand, drinking or doing drugs until intoxicated is not a smart move, but it doesn't mean you deserve to be innocently beat up or raped.

So to cut a long story short. If you drink you are harming yourself and if attacked? Then a violent perpetrator is also at fault for harming you,this is a serious crime

Drink driving is commiting a serious felony as mentioned above. I know quite a few people who have had family members killed due to drink driving and some where the drivers themselves

How can you seriously compare the two?

So some young woman or man gets drunk tonight, then gets violently raped it's their fault??

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Urgh, I know I’m gonna get stoned for this (and not the good kind). But can someone explain to me the legal and moral reasoning of being responsible for some things while drunk and being a victim in others?

Drink too much & drive and have an accident = you’re a POS and go to jail. Drink too much & party and get taken advantage of (theft, rape, etc.) = it’s not your fault. I don’t really understand the lack of consistency in terms of personal responsibility.

Shouldn’t laws encourage people NOT to be so drunk that they don’t know what they are doing? One time they might sexo but the next they might drive, so it’s never a good idea to be that drunk? Alright let the name-calling begin. To be clear I’m not defending or accusing anyone.

Nah, I do think it's a fair thought, since mens rea is an important thing in law.

There are crimes due to criminal negligence. So while a person being blackout drunk means they can't functionally consent to sex and is essentially not their active decision, doing things like drunk driving (even if we consisldered that to not be your active functional decision making either) now puts in a criminal scenario unpurposefully. The original decision to get drunk has now put you into a position where that and further negligent behavior endangers people. It's not that it absolves you if your decision making but you are massively inhibited from being able to make good decisions

 

[JPOMMA]

Well drinking and driving causes great risk, not only to yourself, but to others. Your reflexes are well numbed and you could potentially kill innocents, so yeah it's an extremely serious crime

On the other hand, drinking or doing drugs until intoxicated is not a smart move, but it doesn't mean you deserve to be innocently beat up or raped.

So to cut a long story short. If you drink you are harming yourself and if attacked? Then a violent perpetrator is also at fault for harming you,this is a serious crime

Drink driving is commiting a serious felony as mentioned above. I know quite a few people who have had family members killed due to drink driving and some where the drivers themselves

How can you seriously compare the two?

So some young woman or man gets drunk tonight, then gets violently raped it's their fault??

Thanks for the response. I compare the two because in both cases, the bad outcome is able to happen because of the decision to get drunk. If I know that getting drunk means getting out of control, and I know there can be consequences (whether hitting someone with my car, putting my house on fire, or getting robbed)…am I not responsible for making that bad choice?

I’m not saying the perpetrators are NOT responsible. Rape, steal, etc. is illegal full stop regardless of the state of the victim. BUT if you do something irresponsible (getting drunk), why should you be totally excused for the bad outcome in one scenario, but not in the other? That’s where I fail to understand the moral logic regarding personal responsibility for one’s decisions.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Yeah. So basically, she was originally pressing charges on Conor, but Lawrence came out saying he also had sex with her. This would obfuscate her story and make it less believable. Not sure when he came out with it, but if he did it when the criminal charges were originally being sought, it could have helped factor into why they dropped the case. It's part of why one of the key moments in the civil case was when Conor was pressed on and hesitant about the fact he was also paying Lawrence's attorneys. She was all beat up, and had her tampon lodged inside her and had Conor's DNA in her after sex with him, but supposedly had sex with James after in that state and no DNA? Sure, it's possible she was still up for it and he could have wrapped it, but in that state, it almost certainly wouldn't have been at her behest. Thoughts are, investigations started on Conor, so he dropped some cash on his friend to jump into the story to add someone to his side and make her look worse, so when the criminal case didn't go through, she went the civil route and, as you said, "I don't remember that, but if it did happen, then you raped me too"

But then there‘s an elephant in the room here. For her not to rule out she had sex with Lawrence too means
- A) she was completely coked and drunk out of her mind and she doesn‘t remember much
- B) she took the bait thinking it would look worse for Conor s crew.
-C) she did bang Lawrence too
I mean if A, how can we know for sure she was raped if she can t remember shit. If B, she s a money grabbing whore. If C) what kind of woman fucks her rapist‘s friend right after being raped?

You really don t see a problem here?

 

[JPOMMA]

Nah, I do think it's a fair thought, since mens rea is DC important thing in law.

There are crimes due to criminal negligence. So while a person being blackout drunk means they can't functionally consent to sex and is essentially not their active decision, doing things like drunk driving (even if we consisldered that to not be your active functional decision making either) now puts in a criminal scenario unpurposefully. The original decision to get drunk has now put you into a position where that and further negligent behavior endangers people. It's not that it absolves you if your decision making but you are massively inhibited from being able to make good decisions

Thanks, that’s helpful, especially the part about “functionally consent”. So it seems that if you’re black out drunk = protected by the law from consequences that come from others people vs. guilty of an offense if you are the one doing something bad.

So in essence, the law is enabling the decision to get black out drunk by protecting you from others while in that state. Just don’t accidentally cross the line (but how can you decide since you’re not in control?) and end up harming others.

 

[Trabaho]

Yes against a non top 5. A fair fight. It's always an event. Never missed a Conor UFC fight. Nice style also. Poor guy. Rich guy. But poor guy right now. Too much cokyness. Never got over the Khabib loss. Ever since he did that bus assault he went downhill. He is rich but health first. And belief in God. Being a decent human.
He should never taken those drugs and start being a drunk. But I see him for the good things he has done. Excellent fighter.

 

[dildos]

im voting idifferent in the sense that, i dont want to see him fight again, but at the same time i wouldnt mind seeing him get knocked out.

 

[TheBulge]

Yes, for the simple reason that every single one of his fights are exciting.

The fights themselves, not all the drama around them that gets the gossip girls on sherdog going crazy.