Deadliest Catch Star Sig Hanson Being Sued By His 27 Year Old Daughter

[SunStormParticipant 1277]

MGTOW Knight wrote:

SunStorm wrote:

Yeah….there’s a lot of dick sucking going on here….

Something about feeling more secure in numbers I guess.

I’ve never been afraid to go it alone. Not a herd type of guy.

Regardless bro, you are going a on some moral crusade when all the facts have not been presented. Just virtue signal like a feminists lol. There is a thing called innocent until proven guilty. When dealing with justice, despite how egregious the alleged crime may be, we need to err on the side of innocence until facts say otherwise. Now, don’t get me wrong if new details arise, and she is determined to be lying. Then she is nothing more than a money hungry c~~~, and I hope she gets punished by the long dick of the law. lol I think a stoning is a bit far…

Don’t be a goof.

Objecting to the idea of stoning a woman to death because she says she was abused as a child, is not virtue signalling.

It’s sanity.

Some of you guys have seriously lost your way here.

That red pill juice is turning into black bile in your guts….you’ve gotta assimilate them pills correctly otherwise you literally run the risk of poisoning your mind and moral sense.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

sidecar wrote:

I’ve been trying to avoid saying it, but Is anyone else smelling tuna here?

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

SunStorm wrote:

That red pill juice is turning into black bile in your guts….you’ve gotta assimilate them pills correctly otherwise you literally run the risk of poisoning your mind and moral sense.

You’re really not in a position to lecture anyone right now on “moral sense”.

Answer my f~~~ing question.
Are you circumcised? Are you even a MAN?

I asked if you’re a circumcised man for a reason – and explained why. Yet you completely ignored the point and the question. Because a circumcised man could EASILY claim his genitals were mutilated without his consent and he would have PROOF of this …. and not be able to just claim “someone touched his pee-pee when he was 2” while demanding a hefty check for that.

Looking for some of your “moral sense” here.

We have a strict “no violence” policy but since you ask others to reflect on what they wrote we’re gonna do the same now. . . . .

SunStorm wrote:

If you’re suggesting women should be stoned because they say they’re victims of child abuse….Well dude…just read that back to yourself and reflect on it…

Why don’t you reflect on that “IF”. Because that’s a pretty big “IF” isn’t it. Even Tower didn’t endorse it and said “IF given the choice” – which is not even based in reality. He’s not in a position to play judge and neither are you.

Then TWIST stepped in and said:

Twist wrote:

I have not seen a hint of this intention in the thread. What I see being defended is honesty and presumption of innocence, and specifically in terms of this somewhat unique case. The leap to “MGTOW defending child abuse” is disingenuous and repugnant. And the dick sucking insinuation is pure ad hominem, with a side order of that familiar shaming we so often rail on about.

Which you attempted to deflect by calling it “bulls~~~” and the pretense that it “won’t wash” – which hardly makes you right. Everyone but you is talking out the topic and the issue, but you’re talking about “what the member said” so now we’re doing the same.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[narwhalParticipant]

@KM, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Circumcision is a legal practice. Proof that it occurred is irrelevant as you would not be able to sue your parents or Dr 25 years later because it’s not crime.

SunStorm wrote:

Objecting to the idea of stoning a woman to death because she says she was abused as a child, is not virtue signalling.

You’ve setup a bit of a straw man here. Yes, someone did say that they think they’d prefer stoning over believing a woman when she lacks evidence, but I think you’re being too literal here. The point wasn’t made as an argument to bring back stoning, but to emphasize just how evil and damaging false acquisitions are.

You start off focusing on how she might not be lying, and seemed to moved to the stoning issue. I don’t think anyone is really calling for stoning of women, seriously. Nor do I think MGTOWER statement is dangerous in anyway. Context matters.

Ok. Then do it.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

narwhal wrote:

@KM, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Circumcision is a legal practice

Yes and so is woman lying to try and f~~~ a man over for cash.

But just because something is “legal” doesn’t make it right. Thats’ why it’s called “legal” system now instead of a “justice” system.

narwhal wrote:

Proof that it occurred is irrelevant

Yes that’s what the greedy lying skank is banking on. She could have gone to the authorities the day she turned 18….. but she waited another 10 years. Now why would that be?

Was I “molested” and sexually harrassed when my mother shoved a tit in my mouth?
Goddamit where’s my check!!!

narwhal wrote:

would not be able to sue your parents or Dr 25 years later because it’s not crime.

Neither is a woman lying her f~~~ing head off to destroy someone’s life. Especially the person who created her, raised and supported her.

Convenient.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[MGTOW KnightParticipant 7477]

SunStorm wrote:

Don’t be a goof.

Objecting to the idea of stoning a woman to death because she says she was abused as a child, is not virtue signalling.

It’s sanity.

Some of you guys have seriously lost your way here.

That red pill juice is turning into black bile in your guts….you’ve gotta assimilate them pills correctly otherwise you literally run the risk of poisoning your mind and moral sense.

You really missed the mark on my statement… I wasn’t suggesting that you were virtue signaling by rejecting stoning. Stoning is a pretty archaic and ruthless way to execute justice, and I’m pretty positive most men on here won’t condone such an atrocity. You are virtue signaling by putting others down who reject your viewpoint. It is the same path of logic as a feminists. By morally lambasting others, you are doing exactly what you say you aren’t; virtue signaling. You don’t have the moral high ground, especially when all the facts about this case aren’t even out yet…

Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically

[MGTOW KnightParticipant 7477]

narwhal wrote:

You’ve setup a bit of a straw man here. Yes, someone did say that they think they’d prefer stoning over believing a woman when she lacks evidence, but I think you’re being too literal here. The point wasn’t made as an argument to bring back stoning, but to emphasize just how evil and damaging false acquisitions are.

That is precisely what I noticed. He took my reasoning way out of context to build a straw man. Not once did I even mention whether or not , stoning is good. It isn’t. I was just stating that in order to have justice, the defendant should be seen as not guilty until it is proven otherwise.

Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically

[KeymasterKeymaster]

MGTOW Knight wrote:

virtue signaling

@sunstorm‘s has been doing nothing else but virtue signaling

• “Bulls~~~. That’s not gonna wash”….
• “IF you think…. then reflect on it.”

I believe SJWs & feminists call that “free bleeding”.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Circumcision is totally important here, because by this f~~~ing standard every mother “molests” her uncircumsised son when she shows him how to pull the foreseen back to pee and clean himself properly.

It’s just like jerking him off.

For those of you who are not circumcised, don’t forget to sue your Moms today!!! Did you forget? No really it’s true, your Mom jerked you off when you were two. So go GET PAID!!

( we desperately need a “sarcasm” font here. But that could actually be interpreted either way )

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Pedal, run, rowParticipant]

Sorry, but even the concern about stoning of women is mostly virtue signaling. If women were stoned in the middle east for lying, there would be no women.

Very, very few women are stoned, and it is mostly for killing children or adultery where they refuse to stop even when it becomes public knowledge (willful defiance of the norms of the society) or for public blasphemy etc. For every woman stoned there are probably 1,000 men killed for everything from petty theft, to not giving up his seat to a woman if he is lower caste, to just being seen as creepy as he goes his own way and women begin to talk about they feel unsafe with him around children etc.

Sunstorm, if you were in the middle east, you would have a higher chance to be stoned, simply for existing, than a lying women ever would have.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

I don’t care how hard it is to nail child abusers.

The problem is the harder it is to nail actual pedos and rapists, the easier it is to falsely accuse innocent men. That s~~~ goes both ways.

By letting false accusers get away with muddying the waters on who is a molester / rapist, you also let them muddy the waters on who isn’t. Eventually you get s~~~ like “all men are rapists” and a man can’t even take a selfie in front of a cardboard Darth Vader without being smeared all over the internet getting death threats. And instead of blaming the woman who falsely accused him, the blame somehow fell on “social media”.

F~~~ that.

Anonymous wrote:

False accusers get the pussy pass on perjury, escaping the record, then used as witnesses in the future with no record of their perjury from the past, they testify on the stand clean as a whistle with no prior record of the purjury she commited on the stand.

And that’s how we get bulls~~~ like “four in five women have been raped” and other lies.

narwhal wrote:

I’m not for actual stoning of false accuser and I can’t say that MGTOWER is either.

False accusers should suffer the same punishment their victims would have received. And then some. A bitch caught falsely accusing a man of rape should go to prison for a rape sentence. If she tries that s~~~ against a fellow student in college, she should be expelled without transcripts. And that’s after making full restitution.

What part of: “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” do people not f~~~ing understand?

MGTOW Knight wrote:

Regardless bro, you are going a on some moral crusade when all the facts have not been presented.

Actually all the facts have been presented, multiple times. And Sig was found innocent each time. This bitch doesn’t have a f~~~ing thing to add apart from she really, Really, REALLY wants to believe she was molested because mommy said so all these years, and she really, Really, REALLY wants a fat share of Sig’s T.V. money.

And sunstorm wants to go on some white knight crusade for that.

MGTOW Knight wrote:

You really missed the mark on my statement…

He’s doing it intentionally because nobody’s really that stupid. Well maybe one kind of person is. Or two kinds: tinned in oil or water.

He uses the exact same playbook in every argument where he has no leg to stand on. He never EVER admits he’s wrong. He intentionally ignores or misses the point. He declares his own moral or intellectual superiority. He repeats his own empty assertions without backing them up with facts or reason. And he makes accusations instead of arguments.

Who does that?

[Author]

Posts