Dumbass charity boss won’t accept 200k from rapper cuz values

[breadisfunny]

Donations is only to pay less taxes, not help anybody.

citation needed.

[unfilteredJW]

This girl is 18


This girl is 13....


It does sure as fuck depend.

It especially depends when you have a bunch of 18-22 year old people who look like they're underaged.

Jesus christ you are disgusting.

[breadisfunny]

I'm just here to say that 6ix9ine is just about the worst rapper name I've heard of.

idk yrel could be the worst rapper name i ever heard of.

[Themius]

you derail every fucking thread you post in. INTENTIONALLY.

- - - Updated - - -



you defend the criminals that practice it. which is pretty much the same thing. i'm angry because i've had family members who've suffered being the victim of pedophilic shitstains and i'm not about to let you sit and white knight them all fucking day.

- - - Updated - - -


i have no mercy when it comes to dealing with criminals. they are wastes of life.

What the fuck is defending to you go post where I explicitly have ever defended.

You’ve had family members abused okay, were you? It’s all fine and dandy for people related to victims to talk about things without considering how the actual victim may feel.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus christ you are disgusting.

Exactly how in the fuck is me saying it can be difficult to tell ages “disgusting” What in the ever loving fuck is disgusting about saying some people look older than they are and others younger. What part of that is “disgusting”

Your argument there is I am disgusting for thinking some people looking older than they are and others look younger.... and what is disgusting in noting a literal fact??? It is literally devoid of any personal feelings

[Neenaw]

Some people put principles over material possessions.

Others, like you, put money above all else.

Different strokes dude...

[Mihalik]

I did. I don't care, if kids are given money, then take that money and use it for them. As someone said above - announce that you have taken the money, but purely for the benefit of the kids - the donator is still a criminal. That simple.
This is about adults, not kids. People, stop pretending and be honest...

It doesn't matter what you say why you took the money. Queue Million Moms of Suburbia or whichever moral outrage group of the week doing letter writing and pearl clutching campaigns and by the end of the week half your institutional and branded donors are gone.

Charities have these "value requirements" not because they give a single flying fuck where the money comes from but because they need to reflect the alleged values of their largest donors.

Getting these big long term donors is challenging as is, unless dickhead here commits to put up all the money (for years) they'd lose if McD or the NFL or whatnot pulled the fucking money no charity will or should risk being edgy.

It is what it is.

[Raldazzar]

Regardless on what you think of rappers, but this dude tried to donate 200k for a charity and he got rejected, because their values don’t align.
Fuck your values. Rant over

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52641661

He is trying to win back his audience, hoping they 'chris brown' him and forget he is an utterly garbage human.

[Queen of Hamsters]

The Charity is amazing for standing up for their values rather than accepting money from any filth that wants to donate.

[StillMcfuu]

TIL: People consider Six-Nine a rapper.

[Great Destiny Man]

Sincerely doubt the charity is going to crumble by not accepting the 200 grand. As pointed out many times in the thread, even on a practical level it makes no sense to accept as it risks scaring off the other donors resulting in less money overall. Either way, if charities don't give a shit about morals then you have to wonder about the legitimacy of the charity itself.

[Very Tired]

I'm not so surprised I have to post this, given the poster involved... but can we not use the same arguments pedophiles and sex offenders use to justify themselves just so you can stubbornly win this petty off-topic internet battle? Thanks.

[breadisfunny]

What the fuck is defending to you go post where I explicitly have ever defended.

You’ve had family members abused okay, were you? It’s all fine and dandy for people related to victims to talk about things without considering how the actual victim may feel.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly how in the fuck is me saying it can be difficult to tell ages “disgusting” What in the ever loving fuck is disgusting about saying some people look older than they are and others younger. What part of that is “disgusting”

Your argument there is I am disgusting for thinking some people looking older than they are and others look younger.... and what is disgusting in noting a literal fact??? It is literally devoid of any personal feelings

OH YES i should feel sorry for the woman who raped her 6 and 7 year old children? seriously themius you stop digging while you still have any integrity left. what you just vomited out of your fingers is beyond disgusting.

[Themius]

I'm not so surprised I have to post this, given the poster involved... but can we not use the same arguments pedophiles and sex offenders use to justify themselves just so you can stubbornly win this petty off-topic internet battle? Thanks.

How in the fuck does that work exactly? Considering that paedophilia is a prepubescent person and we are talking about people who are teenagers... also your comment would require to literally ignore the Romeo and Juliet laws to say that it is ridiculous to even talk about the subject.

AND LITERALLY NOTHING OF THIS IS JUSTIFICATION

because I am literally saying there are two different crimes and I think the crimes under R&J fit this more, yet you are fucking pretending I am saying "action is justified absolve" when I am literally saying "there are two different crimes and given the they're on the border I believe being charged with this crime which carries similar sentencing makes sense"

You've taken that to mean "there is no crime here" explain to me, how that leap happens? Explain to me how me explicitly citing a crime, the terms of that crime, the laws of that crime, then saying it should be that other crime which carries similar penalties is akin to justifying????

Have you just decided to read a little, ignore the majority, make up your mind about something, and then proceed to believe what you think rather than what is being said?

- - - Updated - - -

OH YES i should feel sorry for the woman who raped her 6 and 7 year old children? seriously themius you stop digging while you still have any integrity left. what you just vomited out of your fingers is beyond disgusting.

Where the fuck is that, can you please go and find where ever the fuck I said that? Like seriously you are just making up bullshit

Who the fuck said feel sorry for the criminals, because quite literally that is not inside my post anywhere.

Anyone who thinks that saying 13 year olds can look older than their ages, and 18 year olds can look younger than there ages, is a disgusting statement, is dishonest. Because that's literally a simple fact, at this point you would say if someone doesn't card an underaged person at a bar because they assume they're of age, that the barkeep is disgusting too. Exactly what is the "disgusting" part of being confused whether someone is younger or older than their age?

I think you are one of those people who make up a feeling, and then say fuck logic, fuck words, I feel this so I will believe this, and fuck everything else.

For instance, this bit about children and a woman, where the fuck are you getting that? Go back a few pages and I am literally talking about statutory rape and people having ganged up on me in another topic for calling it manipulation and abuse, so how can you possibly fucking believe that?

Another thing, you seem entirely confused as to why I asked if you were ever a victim or if you had ever talked with people that were because you have given me shit for my beliefs based on data in the past, when my rationale makes sense.

You can fucking disagree with me, but to then go and claim "oh you must be a pervert" is fucking bogus. It seems an affliction of people who can't think very well that is someone disagrees on a topic that then they must be the very thing you're disagreeing about. It is stupid, and has no logical basis.

[Xarkan]

Anyone who thinks that saying 13 year olds can look older than their ages, and 18 year olds can look younger than there ages, is a disgusting statement, is dishonest. Because that's literally a simple fact, at this point you would say if someone doesn't card an underaged person at a bar because they assume they're of age, that the barkeep is disgusting too. Exactly what is the "disgusting" part of being confused whether someone is younger or older than their age?

Disgusting does not factor into the bar at all. Failing to card and selling alcohol to people you are not allowed to, failing to card and selling cigarettes to people you are not allowed to? Well no excuse there, they know they should so the full consequences of the law (not that it probably is enough, proably pays to ignore the law) should be applied to them. There should be no excuse about "they looked older" or you undermine the very reason people should card customers.

[Easo]

It doesn't matter what you say why you took the money. Queue Million Moms of Suburbia or whichever moral outrage group of the week doing letter writing and pearl clutching campaigns and by the end of the week half your institutional and branded donors are gone.

Charities have these "value requirements" not because they give a single flying fuck where the money comes from but because they need to reflect the alleged values of their largest donors.

Getting these big long term donors is challenging as is, unless dickhead here commits to put up all the money (for years) they'd lose if McD or the NFL or whatnot pulled the fucking money no charity will or should risk being edgy.

It is what it is.

So basically as I said - adults are the problem with their fake moral outrage and the need to feel superior (not like they will donate themselves...) fucking up lives for children.
Then again, what else is new?

[breadisfunny]

How in the fuck does that work exactly? Considering that paedophilia is a prepubescent person and we are talking about people who are teenagers... also your comment would require to literally ignore the Romeo and Juliet laws to say that it is ridiculous to even talk about the subject.

AND LITERALLY NOTHING OF THIS IS JUSTIFICATION

because I am literally saying there are two different crimes and I think the crimes under R&J fit this more, yet you are fucking pretending I am saying "action is justified absolve" when I am literally saying "there are two different crimes and given the they're on the border I believe being charged with this crime which carries similar sentencing makes sense"

You've taken that to mean "there is no crime here" explain to me, how that leap happens? Explain to me how me explicitly citing a crime, the terms of that crime, the laws of that crime, then saying it should be that other crime which carries similar penalties is akin to justifying????

Have you just decided to read a little, ignore the majority, make up your mind about something, and then proceed to believe what you think rather than what is being said?

- - - Updated - - -



Where the fuck is that, can you please go and find where ever the fuck I said that? Like seriously you are just making up bullshit

Who the fuck said feel sorry for the criminals, because quite literally that is not inside my post anywhere.

Anyone who thinks that saying 13 year olds can look older than their ages, and 18 year olds can look younger than there ages, is a disgusting statement, is dishonest. Because that's literally a simple fact, at this point you would say if someone doesn't card an underaged person at a bar because they assume they're of age, that the barkeep is disgusting too. Exactly what is the "disgusting" part of being confused whether someone is younger or older than their age?

I think you are one of those people who make up a feeling, and then say fuck logic, fuck words, I feel this so I will believe this, and fuck everything else.

For instance, this bit about children and a woman, where the fuck are you getting that? Go back a few pages and I am literally talking about statutory rape and people having ganged up on me in another topic for calling it manipulation and abuse, so how can you possibly fucking believe that?

Another thing, you seem entirely confused as to why I asked if you were ever a victim or if you had ever talked with people that were because you have given me shit for my beliefs based on data in the past, when my rationale makes sense.

You can fucking disagree with me, but to then go and claim "oh you must be a pervert" is fucking bogus. It seems an affliction of people who can't think very well that is someone disagrees on a topic that then they must be the very thing you're disagreeing about. It is stupid, and has no logical basis.

if they don't card then they lose their license and get jailtime themius. i never said you were a pervert but just keep lying themius.
saying it depends on how they look in regards to their age is implying that if you THINK they look overage it's ok.

[Themius]

Disgusting does not factor into the bar at all. Failing to card and selling alcohol to people you are not allowed to, failing to card and selling cigarettes to people you are not allowed to? Well no excuse there, they know they should so the full consequences of the law (not that it probably is enough, proably pays to ignore the law) should be applied to them. There should be no excuse about "they looked older" or you undermine the very reason people should card customers.

So what? This still in no way means it is disgusting which is what I am arguing about people calling me disgusting because I say it can be hard to tell the ages of people about that age, as though that is some huge mysterious never before seen thing in the world. It is bogus to literally say "You're disgusting if you think someone looks older than they are!" the fuck how how in the fuck?!

- - - Updated - - -

if they don't card then they lose their license and get jailtime themius. i never said you were a pervert but just keep lying themius.

Oh you didn't you just hint or assume at the shit over and over and over and then bring up past topics while neglecting the fucking shit I have said and me telling my god damn past and how that factors into my beliefs.

You literally fucking said

OH YES i should feel sorry for the woman who raped her 6 and 7 year old children? seriously themius you stop digging while you still have any integrity left

Which where the fuck did that come from, how the fuck did you come to that bogus conclusion! When nothing of what I said was saying that one should sympathise with the fucking criminal..
I ask have you actually spoken to victims about what they think or feel or their rationale and you pop up with you are saying to sympathise with criminals how in the fuck did you make the leap?

You say the same god damn bullshit in other threads, you have hinted, you have directly said several times since at least 2018, so do not pretend that you haven't.

saying it depends on how they look in regards to their age is implying that if you THINK they look overage it's ok.

because it goes to the fucking motive of the crime which is one of the most important things of any criminal case. My fucking god, the unwillingness to even attempt to understand other's arguments is just crazy to me.

If a person sees a person knows they're under age and has sex with them anyway, that is objectively a worse person than a person who has sees a person, assumes they're of age, and has sex.

One of those people is objectively worse, and most court cases tend to say the person who knows but still pursues, is worse.

Or do you think an 18 year old having sex knowing a person is 14, is equal to an 18 year old having sex with a person they thought was 18? Ignorance is not a defence, of the crime, but ignorance goes to motive to say how severe the punishment should be.

That's another thing, you people don't seem to fucking get I am talking about amount of punishment, none of what I am saying is about absolving or letting people off. Yet even WHEN I EXPLICITLY STATE I am talking about how much they should be punished, the bullshit argument that I am saying let them off has been said here multiple times now.

I guess reading has just become too hard to do on a forum where no one does anything but literally read words.

Almost every topic about crime and me, comes down to me saying to modulate punishment, and people saying I am saying to absolve people entirely.

I want to remind you, that you yourself wanted to kill 11-12 year olds who had committed crimes... you are not one who seems to give two shit about children, you just like to virtue signal. Congratulations.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically as I said - adults are the problem with their fake moral outrage and the need to feel superior (not like they will donate themselves...) fucking up lives for children.
Then again, what else is new?

Ultimately I guess yes that is true Since they'd lose donors, and those donors are just other adults.

Pragmatically, not accepting is not a bad choice. However the slew of people wanting to shun people who may be attempting to atone is... just foolish, and the people who would drop a charity because they accepted money from an ill character care less about the children than they do about virtue signalling.

[Kraenen]

The Brooklyn rapper had evaded jail time on previous charges, including child sex offences in 2015.

"Fuck your values!"

Doesn't look so enlightened any more.

[Xarkan]

So what? This still in no way means it is disgusting which is what I am arguing about people calling me disgusting because I say it can be hard to tell the ages of people about that age, as though that is some huge mysterious never before seen thing in the world. It is bogus to literally say "You're disgusting if you think someone looks older than they are!" the fuck how how in the fuck?!

Considering you only argue that they look older or younger and not that they look "sexy" i am not claiming anything

However the argument has a different point

If people can look older than they are then there is no excuse for assuming that they are the age they look and that should no longer factor in. Because then it is reasonable to assume that could happen

Your argument does not give him an excuse, it removes any excuse he could have had

[Themius]

Considering you only argue that they look older or younger and not that they look "sexy" i am not claiming anything

However the argument has a different point

If people can look older than they are then there is no excuse for assuming that they are the age they look and that should no longer factor in. Because then it is reasonable to assume that could happen

Your argument does not give him an excuse, it removes any excuse he could have had

True... which is why I also said he was an idiot 18 year old boy who probably was on drugs, so logical reasoning is entirely lacking there. Chances are also he wasn't terribly bright and with a stunted mental development age. perhaps due to violence in his past and of course drugs.

My argument basically is that motive is important so if a person is stupid and does it because they think someone is legal and about their age (which is an easy mistake to make for 17-18 year olds if we recall that executive functions aren't truly completely developed until ~25) then their motive likely wasn't to have sex with an underaged person.

But a person who knows and does it anyway.. that person should be more harshly treated.

It is a rather benign belief, that shows itself in the courts all the time, it isn't radical, it isn't extreme, but apparently my saying of it means it must be going by 6 posters here.