A Story About Being Attacked by an Armed JK - Ch. 3

[Eighty-six]

My guy, the emphasis was added but I MADE THE STATEMENT

In later comments.

After I pointed out the error of your initial statement.

Which is why I afterwards said that we both recognized that marriages can occur without state recognition, despite what you said initially.

Everything you are now citing is after that objection to a comment that expressed a definition of marriage that expressly excluded non-state recognized marriages (whether or not you were talking of modern-day Japan), but you keep saying that you "never disavowed non-state recognized marriages".

...MURDERERS GET STATE-MARRIED ALL THE TIME!

The first two you cited became convicts following their marriages, not outlaws (in any sense of that term). The third person was neither, but presided over the trial for a man (Ted Bundy) who got married in order to ensure the woman he married couldn't be made to testify against him.

Al Capone was not only married prior to his criminal activities at an age where he needed parental permission, but also sought to do legitimate work in order to support his wife and child up until his father died of heart failure.

Criminals of all backgrounds still exist within the confines of law whenever they WANT TO, whenever it is BENEFICIAL to them.

And it wouldn't be beneficial to an active assassin.

 

[Ninoren]

The comment has more content than the manga?!

No Joke xd There's probably more text, than the Manga will ever have, also I had faith in him being a troll, but I guess he's being genuine o_ô...

 

[Hitspark]

In later comments.

After I pointed out the error of your initial statement.

You didn't point out any error, you added your own meaning and I simply being courteous acknowledged it. That's it.

Which is why I afterwards said that we both recognized that marriages can occur without state recognition, despite what you said initially.

NO-
NO-
NO-
NO-
NO-
HOLD ON, what happened in this section?

Clearly, we both recognize that marriage can, has, and does exist outside the recognition of the state, so there's no need to further argue that matter.

Never said it wasn't.

And then you proceeded to say

...you emphatically defined marriage as such, to begin with:

DO you see this? Do you see this rundown of events? I ONLY, and I mean ONLY, referred to Standard Japanese marriage because she is a modern japanese girl and that should be the standard assumption. YOU THEN PROCEEDED TO SAY I AM EMPHATICALLY DEFINING MARRIAGE.
This is an argument YOU started, not me. This is YOU making my words mean something they are not because you can't piece together something as basic as context.

You are saying, that I am saying, ALL marriage is only valid with the state's approval when I have in the very same comment explicitly pointed out that I'm referring to Standard Japanese marriage because she is a modern Japanese girl.

Everything you are now citing is after that objection to a comment that expressed a definition of marriage that expressly excluded non-state recognized marriages (whether or not you were talking of modern-day Japan), but you keep saying that you "never disavowed non-state recognized marriages".

Show me the objection where I say "Any marriage not state-approved is not a marriage" I dare you.

The first two you cited became convicts following their marriages, not outlaws (in any sense of that term). The third person was neither, but presided over the trial for a man (Ted Bundy) who got married in order to ensure the woman he married couldn't be made to testify against him.

Being a Convict and being an Outlaw are not the same. A convict is someone who has already been caught red-handed and is convicted. An outlaw is someone who is breaking the law and has not yet been caught.

After the break-up, he attempted to force her to marry him by threatening her with a gun.

So this doesn't count as outlaw activity? This was before he (Joseph) got married.


Though you are right in that Tilmer was married after. Judge was a failed cite on my part.

Al Capone was not only married prior to his criminal activities at an age where he needed parental permission, but also sought to do legitimate work in order to support his wife and child up until his father died of heart failure.

??? Copone worked with the Colosimo gang a year before his dad died. He was one of their bouncers.

And it wouldn't be beneficial to an active assassin.

Neither is having sex with your victim. We're also assuming she is an assassin and not just some rando murderer.

 

[Hitspark]

No Joke xd There's probably more text, than the Manga will ever have, also I had faith in him being a troll, but I guess he's being genuine o_ô...

I don't like my words being taken out of context and I will defend that to the death.

 

[Eighty-six]

DO you see this? Do you see this rundown of events? I ONLY, and I mean ONLY, referred to Standard Japanese marriage

You materially did not, until you were called out on it. You provided a definition of marriage that noticeably didn't specify the Japanese and excluded marriages that occurred outside state recognition. Not only did I already demonstrate this, you outright said (and here's me fulfilling your dare-- emphasis mine):

....You do realize that marriage is a legal process overseen by government bodies right...? You do understand that marriage laws exist and you don't just marry someone without the law and government being involved, right?

Or do both these exclusive statements somehow not necessarily exclude non-state recognized marriages from the notion of marriage? Do "non-state recognized marriages" fit in a definition of marriage where it's a legal process overseen by government bodies? Does it fit in a definition wherein one doesn't marry someone without the law and government being involved?

And do multiple bodies within the Japanese government officiate a state marriage? Is that why you mention "government bodies" in the plural while also not specifying that you're speaking of Japan?

I repeat: your added context would not matter either way because your initial statement is wrong regardless of whether you were always talking in specifically a Japanese context.

Additionally: your initial statement is wrong regardless of whether either or both of these parties are Japanese, and regardless of whether this is occurring in Japan.

This is not a matter of "context". You've distended this conversation because you insist on repeatedly attempting to rewrite an obvious past with evidence that only serves to thwart you, instead of just admitting that you made an inaccurate statement.

The only person being intellectually dishonest, is you.

The only person that's misrepresenting you, is yourself.

I sought to be charitable when you seemingly inadvertently admitted that shotgun weddings exist (in contradiction to your original statement). Rather than point out then that your clarification of context was irrelevant-- as I am now-- I attempted to leave the conversation at only pointing out that we both recognize that non-state recognized marriages exist.

The only way I could be more charitable is to pretend you wrote better comments.

 

[Hitspark]

You materially did not, until you were called out on it. You provided a definition of marriage that noticeably didn't specify the Japanese and excluded marriages that occurred outside state recognition.

I did specify it. I pointed out that she's a girl living in modern day Japan. What more do you need me to say?

Not only did I already demonstrate this, you outright said (and here's me fulfilling your dare):



However-- and I repeat-- your added context would not matter either way because your initial statement is wrong regardless of whether you were always talking in specifically a Japanese context.

This is not a matter of "context". You've distended this conversation because you insist on repeatedly attempting to rewrite an obvious past with evidence that only serves to thwart you, instead of just admitting that you made an inaccurate statement.

What was the flow of events?

1. Neither of those things are necessarily true. The institution of marriage-- talk less the concept thereof-- well predates any direct government interest in it.

She's living in modern day Japan, bud. Stay with me.

Why do you keep returning to this and then ignoring it? This is me already specifying what I am talking about. You literally could not get any clearer as to where I am referring and what I am referring to.

What part of this was not clear? Help me to understand because I think this already establishes everything but you don't.

You keep skipping over this segment and I wanna know why.

The only person being intellectually dishonest, is you.

The only person that's taking you out of context and misrepresenting you, is yourself.

Except I've done nothing but quote and point out the history of our conversation, while you're making claims about my comments without any proof, while also ignoring the core of the issue.

1. Neither of those things are necessarily true. The institution of marriage-- talk less the concept thereof-- well predates any direct government interest in it.

She's living in modern day Japan, bud. Stay with me.

Why is this exchange not enough to tell you where I'm referring and what the intent behind my words are? Stop avoiding it. Explain it.

You talked about non-state marriages and their history. My response and clarification is that she is a girl living in Modern Day Japan and asking you to stay on page with me. Why is this not enough to tell you my intent and where I am focused. That's what I want to know.

I sought to be charitable when you seemingly inadvertently admitted that shotgun weddings exist (in contradiction to your original statement).

Except it isn't because I was not originally referring to shotgun weddings that happen in the boonies, as most people don't when talking about marriage anywhere. All I did was acknowledge that they exist, that's it. Hell that doesn't even say if I consider them legitimate marriages or not but we're getting off track.

Rather than point out then that your clarification of context was irrelevant-- as I am now-- I attempted to leave the conversation at only pointing out that we both recognize that non-state recognized marriages exist.

You would literally be the only one bothered if the conversation stopped. I'm not this girl. There is no gun to your head. I'm simply trying to point out that what I said and what I know I said.

I had no problem admitting I was wrong when I brought up the judge and the lawyer. So why, if I were wrong and being intellectually dishonest, would I not just ignore those parts and pretend they didn't happen? Doesn't exactly make me look good, does it? When the people I'm trying to use as proof of something, aren't even those things, right? The answer is simple. I believe I'm saying something one way and you believe I am saying it another way.

That's really all this conversation comes down to. I have been intellectually honest and humble with you at every point in this topic (as you have with me, don't think I haven't noticed the lack of insults and vitriolic language) and I will continue to do so. However, I fervently feel my statement was clear & specific so I will continue to argue that it was even if that means I argue into the void of space itself.

 

[Eighty-six]

Why do you keep returning to this and then ignoring it? This is me already specifying what I am talking about. You literally could not get any clearer as to where I am referring and what I am referring to.

What part of this was not clear? Help me to understand because I think this already establishes everything but you don't.

You keep skipping over this segment and I wanna know why.

Obviously, I'm not skipping over it.

The post I first responded to isn't in reference to Japan specifically, and can only be understood as a collection of general definitions of marriage. This is the post I respond to by pointing out that marriages outside legal recognition have and do exist.

The same post where you specify that you're speaking about Japan is the same comment where you acknowledge that marriages outside of legal recognition exist (putting aside that a shotgun wedding is not necessarily done without state recognition).

Seeing this acknowledgment, I choose to not address your first response in that post, instead trying to end the conversation by pointing out that we both acknowledge that non-state recognized marriages can and do exist (though I disagree with your characterization of them, especially since "shotgun wedding" would only be a type of unrecognized marriage AND they are not necessarily unrecognized by the state).

Do you get it?

1. Your clarification that you were talking in the context of Japan was not part of the post I first challenged, but rather a response to that first challenge.
2. The post wherein you made your clarification, in response to my first challenge, is the same post wherein you acknowledged non-state recognized marriages exist.
3. I choose to try to conclude the argument by acknowledging that we can both recognize that non-state recognized marriages exist, without addressing your context point.
4. You say that you never said otherwise, despite the post I first challenged only being able to be understood in a way that excludes non-state recognized marriages from its definitions.

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter, even if the post I first challenged specified that you were talking about Japan instead of being thoroughly phrased as general definitions of marriage: non-state recognized marriage doubtless occurs in Japan.

What I have been saying is that the post I first responded to, does not and cannot include the context you specify in a later post, after that response. It therefore does not (and cannot) respond to that context. Not without me being prescient.

ALSO, even if it was written in a way that can conceivably accommodate that context, it would not make it any more correct given the substance of its definitions.

 

[Hitspark]

Obviously, I'm not skipping over it.

The post I first responded to isn't in reference to Japan specifically, and can only be understood as a collection of general definitions of marriage. This is the post I respond to by pointing out that marriages outside legal recognition have and do exist.

The same post where you specify that you're speaking about Japan is the same comment where you acknowledge that marriages outside of legal recognition exist (putting aside that a shotgun wedding is not necessarily done without state recognition).

Seeing this acknowledgment, I choose to not address your first response in that post, instead trying to end the conversation by pointing out that we both acknowledge that non-state recognized marriages can and do exist (though I disagree with your characterization of them, especially since "shotgun wedding" would only be a type of unrecognized marriage AND they are not necessarily unrecognized by the state).

I'm understanding your view so far.

Do you get it?

1. Your clarification that you were talking in the context of Japan was not part of the post I first challenged, but rather a response to that first challenge.
2. The post wherein you made your clarification, in response to my first challenge, is the same post wherein you acknowledged non-state recognized marriages exist.
3. I choose to try to conclude the argument by acknowledging that we can both recognize that non-state recognized marriages exist, without addressing your context point.
4. You say that you never said otherwise, despite the post I first challenged only being able to be understood in a way that excludes non-state recognized marriages from its definitions.

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter, even if the post I first challenged specified that you were talking about Japan instead of being thoroughly phrased as general definitions of marriage: non-state recognized marriage doubtless occurs in Japan.

What I have been saying is that the post I first responded to, does not and cannot include the context you specify in a later post, after that response. It therefore does not (and cannot) respond to that context. Not without me being prescient.

ALSO, even if it was written in a way that can conceivably accommodate that context, it would not make it any more correct given the substance of its definitions.

Alright, I think I see where we're clashing. For me, as I understood it when I wrote it, when I spoke about marriages specific to Modern Day Japan you seem to be concluding that I'm being exclusionary as well, I.E. that I'm also saying other forms of marriage aren't legitimate, or that they don't exist, or don't matter etc.

But when I'm talking about Modern Day Marriages, I'm not considering other marriages as part of the equation because I'm honing in on something specific to get across what I'm trying to say. You know what I mean?

It's not that I'm saying other marriage types don't exist, I'm just focused on one specific type for the moment. That's why I consider myself as never saying other types didn't exist. I wasn't thinking about them for the original situation I was referring to (The girl) so I didn't reference them.

Think of it like when you're shopping for a brand of food. You're not saying other brands don't exist, but your attention is towards one brand in particular at that moment. That is what I mean when I say "I never did" when responding. I didn't disavow them as far as I was concerned, I just wasn't focused on them. Does that make sense?

For the moment of that comment, I was focused on the fact that she seemed like a modern day girl, in a modern day city, with the assumption that she had some plan to get through modern day measures for marriage that take up the majority of Japanese marriages.

My intent was to say that she is one girl, in one place, with one means of doing it (illegally). Other forms of marriage did not cross my mind, not because I didn't believe in them, but simply because I believed she meant for the legal long haul because she's clearly a city girl and in a city that's generally the only way you get it done.

Does that make sense? Have we cleared this whole thing up?

 

[J-ROC]

shotgun marriage or should we say handgun marriage

 

[Shamz]

No Joke xd There's probably more text, than the Manga will ever have, also I had faith in him being a troll, but I guess he's being genuine o_ô...

I dont think that the author even bothered thinking about it as deep.

 

[TestAddress]

How old is she? She's supposed to be a JK, right? How is he gonna marry her without parental permission? She gonna hire some goons to pretend to be her mom and dad or are they gonna "date" for several years until she's 18? If she's 17 it makes some slight more sense because that's only a year, maybe a few months depending on when she's asking.

He will screw over "parental permission" in the face!

 

[Kaizerdist]

Spent so long reading these comments I almost forgot how I got here in the first place. What a ride....

 

[Vomiy]