Tate Brothers will End up in prison(most likely). Evidence is conclusive.

[Ahbapx]

@Consept

Tate's were not just making money from women, they were also making money from men. He was selling and advertising how he was making money with women to the men, This can easily lead to false advertisement, consumer-pleasing behavior, and exaggerated Bro-Science talks from the Tate's.

So, a fair system can not judge a person solely on what they said, there should be concrete evidence, if not video recordings, or sound records, there should be matching testimonials, storylines, evidence etc. Based on what is going on after a whole year he is still not in jail, even though this doesn't prove he is innocent it is enough to try to look at the case from a more objective perspective.

 

 

 

[Consept]

28 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:

@Consept

Tate's were not just making money from women, they were also making money from men. He was selling and advertising how he was making money with women to the men, This can easily lead to false advertisement, consumer-pleasing behavior, and exaggerated Bro-Science talks from the Tate's.

So, a fair system can not judge a person solely on what they said, there should be concrete evidence, if not video recordings, or sound records, there should be matching testimonials, storylines, evidence etc. Based on what is going on after a whole year he is still not in jail, even though this doesn't prove he is innocent it is enough to try to look at the case from a more objective perspective.

 

 

 

OK so you're saying that he could've  exaggerated his talks to encourage men to buy, so that would be false advertising. Either way it's not great. 

But evidence wise there are chat logs from his war room chat, that detail how he manipulates the women to stay. He specifies how he lied to one woman saying that he's heard stuff from her home town about her being a sex worker, he said this is to cut her off from her support system. There's another one where he breaks down how he gets the girl to come to Romania but cuts off her money until she agrees to work on camera. He shows pictures of the girls in the chat, there are numerous chats like this. 

There are others in the chat that verify this as they are part of the chats. So this takes away the marketing element as these guys have already signed up right?

Some of the women have also come out with testimonials that match the chats and Tates description from the videos. 

Aside from that just because they aren't in prison yet isn't enough to say that they're innocent. I would also argue that I am being objective, I don't think anyone can see the evidence there and say that he didn't do anything, I would argue that seeing that evidence and still finding excuses is heavily biased as if it wasn't Tate and you saw that evidence, no one would say that person's innocent. 

[Ahbapx]

On 3/15/2024 at 0:18 AM, Consept said:

OK so you're saying that he could've  exaggerated his talks to encourage men to buy, so that would be false advertising. Either way it's not great. 

But evidence wise there are chat logs from his war room chat, that detail how he manipulates the women to stay. He specifies how he lied to one woman saying that he's heard stuff from her home town about her being a sex worker, he said this is to cut her off from her support system. There's another one where he breaks down how he gets the girl to come to Romania but cuts off her money until she agrees to work on camera. He shows pictures of the girls in the chat, there are numerous chats like this. 

There are others in the chat that verify this as they are part of the chats. So this takes away the marketing element as these guys have already signed up right?

Some of the women have also come out with testimonials that match the chats and Tates description from the videos. 

Aside from that just because they aren't in prison yet isn't enough to say that they're innocent. I would also argue that I am being objective, I don't think anyone can see the evidence there and say that he didn't do anything, I would argue that seeing that evidence and still finding excuses is heavily biased as if it wasn't Tate and you saw that evidence, no one would say that person's innocent. 

You are missing my point brutha, i am talking about how people are using Tate's to justify their false agendas.

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

On 2024-03-14 at 6:08 PM, Consept said:

Im not gonna argue whether theyre guilty or not as the courts will do that, i would say theres more than enough evidence of him self snitching in this thread anyway. 

What I was arguing against is them facing injustices, I have no sympathy at all when they chose to go there and insulted Romania by saying they'll just pay their way out  that would literally be the definition of injustice id they did what they wanted to do and then to cry like a baby complaining about injustices done to you??

The thing is, if they never went to Romania and kept a relatively low profile, they would've been fine even they kept doing the webcam stuff. But instead they literally became as famous as possible and talked about all their crimes. The only reason why they've been arrested now is because they texted a streamer exposing themselves in a bid to get more eyeballs on them. For someone who proclaims himself as a genius he does the dumbest shit, he's like a villian who tells the hero his whole plan and then gets caught.

   You can choose not to argue the legality of they're guilt, the Romanian courts will eventually, but then make the claim there's 'enough evidence' in this thread for Andrew Tate and maybe Triston Tate self snitching? Where's the post showing this set of evidence, and why would you claim not to make a legal sounding argument but claim arbitrary amount of evidence here is enough for an arrest and charge?

   Arguing them facing injustices? Injustices by the Romanian government? What's your definition of injustice?

   So as long as they never went to Romania, and kept a relatively low profile that Andrew Tate and Triston Tate would've been fine? How would they have been fine if they didn't market and do business, and marketed as much in social media? What do you mean they became suddenly famous as possible and talked about their crime? Haven't they talked about way more like misogyny and sexist sounding topics, material gains, some fighting tips, some topics about marketing and business, meanwhile being marketed as a bit hyper masculine more so than talking about their crimes? And Andrew Tate's/Triston Tate's claims of self genius happened when in live and playing that social media character, or was said when they're not in character? 

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Arguing them facing injustices? Injustices by the Romanian government? What's your definition of injustice?

I was answering the other person in thread specifically so obviously I'm mot going to cover all angles of this in single posts. 

But to answer you, the whole idea of them facing injustice hinges on whether theyre guilty or not. If they are guilty then it's not an injustice how they're treated as they would be treated as any other human trafficker/rapist only difference with them is that they're famous so of course it's going to be more public. You can argue that the Romanian legal system is unjust but that's not an argument specific to the Tates as anyone that lives in Romania is subject to it and most of then wouldn't have had a choice to move away from it unlike Tate. 

If the argument is that they're really innocent but they are being treated as if they're guilty, that's fine. Except imo there's more than enough evidence to prosecute as we can see in this thread, however you want to spin the evidence is whatever but its still there, if it wasn't investigated that would be an injustice to the alleged victims. If Tate wasn't famous and in the public eye and this evidence was around for some unknown human trafficker, no one in the world would be saying this was unjust. 

@Ahbapx 's point of others usinh Tate for their own agenda is par for the course. Anyone whos in the public eye and commits crimes will leave themselves open for others agendas. But that doesn't take away what I've outlined in the first 2 paragraphs. Even if he was being used for an agenda he still either did these things or created enough smoke where people think there's a fire. My perspective is that he did what he said he did in videos and on his private chat, so imo he's guilty based on his own submissions. 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I was answering the other person in thread specifically so obviously I'm mot going to cover all angles of this in single posts. 

But to answer you, the whole idea of them facing injustice hinges on whether theyre guilty or not. If they are guilty then it's not an injustice how they're treated as they would be treated as any other human trafficker/rapist only difference with them is that they're famous so of course it's going to be more public. You can argue that the Romanian legal system is unjust but that's not an argument specific to the Tates as anyone that lives in Romania is subject to it and most of then wouldn't have had a choice to move away from it unlike Tate. 

If the argument is that they're really innocent but they are being treated as if they're guilty, that's fine. Except imo there's more than enough evidence to prosecute as we can see in this thread, however you want to spin the evidence is whatever but its still there, if it wasn't investigated that would be an injustice to the alleged victims. If Tate wasn't famous and in the public eye and this evidence was around for some unknown human trafficker, no one in the world would be saying this was unjust. 

@Ahbapx 's point of others usinh Tate for their own agenda is par for the course. Anyone whos in the public eye and commits crimes will leave themselves open for others agendas. But that doesn't take away what I've outlined in the first 2 paragraphs. Even if he was being used for an agenda he still either did these things or created enough smoke where people think there's a fire. My perspective is that he did what he said he did in videos and on his private chat, so imo he's guilty based on his own submissions. 

   The main issue is that this is exactly like this online case here:

   Basically yes Maximilian guy was mostly a bad character, bit immoral, trolling, cyber bullying, and a bit edgy, BUT Charlie accuses and spins a narrative against him that's totally UNTRUE! Pedophilia allegations followed, and due to Charlie's bigger audience his story out voiced any counter narratives or fact checking for Maximilian, ultimately in a way ruining his online career. Where it specifically parallels to Andrew and Triston Tate and their view of Romania's injustice is that they are being charged with tax evasion, human and sex trafficking charges. Now they're getting arrested again for conspiracy to flee Romania, due to Adin Ross saying they might flee...really???Also if we took this situation and made an alternative hypothetical, say Andrew/Triston Tate are only guilty of tax evasion, illegal solicitation of OnlyFans, human/sex trafficking, but then Romania throws in rape and sexual assault evidence and starts a slander/defamation on the Tates of charges that aren't there. Is that not injustice for them?

   Also @Thought Art yes I think there was another Destiny thread I forgotten, but also @Thought Art and @UnbornTao Isn't it a bit unfair that you asked me that question, but locked that thread which made me unable to reply to your question? It's fine if I'm a moderator I can reply on locked threads but I'm a normal user so my privileges here are limited.

[Twentyfirst]

Why is it conspiracy to consider that someone speaking against certain agendas will become a target? 

[Danioover9000]

@Twentyfirst

4 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Why is it conspiracy to consider that someone speaking against certain agendas will become a target? 

   Why not?

[Consept]

11 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is that not injustice for them?

Yes hypothetically if Romania made up something to unfairly target Tate then that would be injustice. But in the Tates case what are Romania making up? There's evidence of everything he's being charged for. 

The other case you brought up I really don't get the relevance. Who incriminated Tate other than himself? he was on podcasts just before talking about how much money he made from scamming guys. As well as all the historical videos of him breaking down exactly how he pimped women. So I don't get this injustice thing. It's literally the equivalent of someone explaining how they killed someone, teaching others how they kill, posting it all online and then saying its an injustice that they're being investigated. What do you want to happen. 

If you want to talk about injustice, what about all the women he's groomed and ripped off who by his own admission had never done any sex work before? what about the lonely men he's scammed out of 1000s? What about their justice? 

If any country saw this video below and numerous others after getting complaints about this guy, should they just leave it?

 

Edited March 17 by Consept

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

3 hours ago, Consept said:

Yes hypothetically if Romania made up something to unfairly target Tate then that would be injustice. But in the Tates case what are Romania making up? There's evidence of everything he's being charged for. 

The other case you brought up I really don't get the relevance. Who incriminated Tate other than himself? he was on podcasts just before talking about how much money he made from scamming guys. As well as all the historical videos of him breaking down exactly how he pimped women. So I don't get this injustice thing. It's literally the equivalent of someone explaining how they killed someone, teaching others how they kill, posting it all online and then saying its an injustice that they're being investigated. What do you want to happen. 

If you want to talk about injustice, what about all the women he's groomed and ripped off who by his own admission had never done any sex work before? what about the lonely men he's scammed out of 1000s? What about their justice? 

If any country saw this video below and numerous others after getting complaints about this guy, should they just leave it?

 

   I'm commenting on your picky use of logic here. If you're willing to c0ondemn Andrew/Triston Tate, then you also have to Condemn Destiny, Charlie/Moistcritikal/Penguinz0 for lying, slander and defamation. It's fine to judge and disagree with a bad faith character, find him/her immoral, but it's another thing to accuse them of something they didn't do, but because of mass popularity and mass negativity they become the 'perfect victims' of smear campaigns.

 

 

[Consept]

22 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm commenting on your picky use of logic here. If you're willing to c0ondemn Andrew/Triston Tate, then you also have to Condemn Destiny, Charlie/Moistcritikal/Penguinz0 for lying, slander and defamation. It's fine to judge and disagree with a bad faith character, find him/her immoral, but it's another thing to accuse them of something they didn't do, but because of mass popularity and mass negativity they become the 'perfect victims' of smear campaigns.

Why do i have to condemn someone else ive never heard of? 

With all respect its not a good strategy to bring up a completely different case with different variables and use that as a defence of the case at hand. Even if a steelman you and say that the doc you brought up shows that that person was treated unfairly, why would that automatically mean that Tate is being treated unfairly? Why dont you extend that to Epstein, maybe Epstein was innocent because this some other guy was treated unfairly, i dont get the logic. 

But if this guy has admitted to whatever his crimes are in the same way Tate has and there are witnesses, essentially all the evidence that Tate has on him, then he wouldnt be being treated unfairly, if there isnt that evidence then he has. Do people make false claims online either wilful ignorance or actual ignorance? Yeah of course, but just because that happens doesnt mean every situation is that. 

If you look at the Tate examples that ive posted, which is literally nearly an hour of him admitting crimes up until just before the case, I dont see how someone can put all that out and then say its a smear campaign, if it is hes smeared himself. Also notice that hes now backtracked from everything he said in those clips, if there was nothing wrong with what he did, why is he now changing his story? 

Your whole point rests on him not having done the things hes been accused of but then how do you consolidate that hes said hes done all the things hes been accused of? The only thing you could argue is that, he didnt mean it, it was entertainment etc but then you cant blame him being investigated even if he is innocent. If I go online and start saying im going to bomb somewhere as a joke, I cant then say 'theyre out to get me' when the police knock on my door. But its very clear from the clips that hes not joking, especially taking into account chat logs and witnesses etc. Honestly speaking i dont understand this defence of him, i think youre too smart for that 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

2 hours ago, Consept said:

Why do i have to condemn someone else ive never heard of? 

With all respect its not a good strategy to bring up a completely different case with different variables and use that as a defence of the case at hand. Even if a steelman you and say that the doc you brought up shows that that person was treated unfairly, why would that automatically mean that Tate is being treated unfairly? Why dont you extend that to Epstein, maybe Epstein was innocent because this some other guy was treated unfairly, i dont get the logic. 

But if this guy has admitted to whatever his crimes are in the same way Tate has and there are witnesses, essentially all the evidence that Tate has on him, then he wouldnt be being treated unfairly, if there isnt that evidence then he has. Do people make false claims online either wilful ignorance or actual ignorance? Yeah of course, but just because that happens doesnt mean every situation is that. 

If you look at the Tate examples that ive posted, which is literally nearly an hour of him admitting crimes up until just before the case, I dont see how someone can put all that out and then say its a smear campaign, if it is hes smeared himself. Also notice that hes now backtracked from everything he said in those clips, if there was nothing wrong with what he did, why is he now changing his story? 

Your whole point rests on him not having done the things hes been accused of but then how do you consolidate that hes said hes done all the things hes been accused of? The only thing you could argue is that, he didnt mean it, it was entertainment etc but then you cant blame him being investigated even if he is innocent. If I go online and start saying im going to bomb somewhere as a joke, I cant then say 'theyre out to get me' when the police knock on my door. But its very clear from the clips that hes not joking, especially taking into account chat logs and witnesses etc. Honestly speaking i dont understand this defence of him, i think youre too smart for that 

   My main issue is that both contexts and both cases involved the mob and the popular public figures of power kicking down on a person with invented charges. Yes both Andrew Tate/Triston Tate and Maximilian guy are bad characters, have lower Spiral Dynamics stages of values development, lower in moral development and somewhat cognitive development, immoral and have differences in personality types/traits, ego stages, shadow selves, other lines of development that is a regression in that person's life domain and even societal domain as it pertains to their needs of belonging, and differences in ideological beliefs, metanarratives, and information ecology consumed, and their biases and preferences that shapes their worldviews. Yes both characters are generally bad, but also both them and many others when they're on the down low are kicked and people exaggerate their crimes or their evil ways, that's the main issue I have when most people just bad faith tactics and black/white binary think these people accused of these evils. The thought terminating cliches is also another issue I have, most people just generalize, and distort and exaggerate their immoral actions.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

My main issue is that both contexts and both cases involved the mob and the popular public figures of power kicking down on a person with invented charges

First off theres no point in throwing in the other case for the purposes of this topic, might as well just stick to one. So the reason why hes getting investigated isnt to do with the public mob, the mob dont have the power to say someones guilty of something with absolutely no evidence and then the target get arrested, if that was the case people would be getting arrested constantly. You say 'invented charges' which is really key to your argument, as in, if they are not invented or if theres enough smoke to warrant looking for a fire then you dont have a point. 

One of his crimes was being accused is recruiting girls through the 'loverboy method' which is defined as - 

"The ‘lover boy’ technique is widely used by criminals to recruit victims facing economic and social hardship into forced prostitution. The suspects prey on their victims’ vulnerabilities, enticing them with expensive gifts or promises of a better life. The scam starts with the perpetrators approaching potential victims under the false pretence of wanting to build a relationship with them. Eventually, perpetrators convince victims to move away from or cut ties with their family. Once isolated, the victims are forced into prostitution to earn money for their handler. They are often kept in this situation through a combination of affection, violence, and threats against them and their families." 

https://www.europol.europa.eu/operations-services-and-innovation/public-awareness-and-prevention-guides/how-not-to-fall-for-lover-boy-scam#:~:text=The 'lover boy' technique is,promises of a better life.

Now here is Tate talking about what his 'job' was - 

 

Here is Tate explaining why he doesnt use an aggressive approach to pimp women -

 

This is the a report about the leaked war room chats talking about Iggy, Tates right hand man -

"He gives the members instructions on how to take advantage of a lady by "reducing attention and noting if she chases" as well as how to "set up a "coffee date" and carry out a move to find out if she is willing to pay for our coffee and serve us."

He continued, "After that it becomes a series of gradual steps to remove her entire support structure from her life," the BBC reported.

'Then we 'punish her for a transgression - real or imagined - by having her get our name tattooed on her, leaving her family's home/apartment/town/country, WebCamming/stripping/walking the track for us, getting us girls'.

He then said to 'escalate, escalate, escalate,' the message shows." 

https://documentwomen.com/andrew-tate-call-log

 

Now Ive highlighted that this is nothing to do with just 'immoral acts', these are by the book crimes, we even know the intention behind Tate and his crews crime because he was very proud of them and breaks down his thinking behind them, he even creates a course so that others can do the same crimes which they do  Its actually incredible how unabashed he did this whole thing. Then to complain that youve been wrongfully targeted, im sorry but i dont know what world youre living in. 

Even if i want to give complete benefit of the doubt that Tate was just bantering and doing it for entertainment, he 100% still shouldve been investigated if he was talking about how to do crimes and saying he was doing them, that isnt unjust treatment, do you want the police to just not investigate these types of things? 

So to me the only people that can defend this are heavily biased toward Tate. 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

2 hours ago, Consept said:

First off theres no point in throwing in the other case for the purposes of this topic, might as well just stick to one. So the reason why hes getting investigated isnt to do with the public mob, the mob dont have the power to say someones guilty of something with absolutely no evidence and then the target get arrested, if that was the case people would be getting arrested constantly. You say 'invented charges' which is really key to your argument, as in, if they are not invented or if theres enough smoke to warrant looking for a fire then you dont have a point. 

One of his crimes was being accused is recruiting girls through the 'loverboy method' which is defined as - 

"The ‘lover boy’ technique is widely used by criminals to recruit victims facing economic and social hardship into forced prostitution. The suspects prey on their victims’ vulnerabilities, enticing them with expensive gifts or promises of a better life. The scam starts with the perpetrators approaching potential victims under the false pretence of wanting to build a relationship with them. Eventually, perpetrators convince victims to move away from or cut ties with their family. Once isolated, the victims are forced into prostitution to earn money for their handler. They are often kept in this situation through a combination of affection, violence, and threats against them and their families." 

https://www.europol.europa.eu/operations-services-and-innovation/public-awareness-and-prevention-guides/how-not-to-fall-for-lover-boy-scam#:~:text=The 'lover boy' technique is,promises of a better life.

Now here is Tate talking about what his 'job' was - 

 

Here is Tate explaining why he doesnt use an aggressive approach to pimp women -

 

This is the a report about the leaked war room chats talking about Iggy, Tates right hand man -

"He gives the members instructions on how to take advantage of a lady by "reducing attention and noting if she chases" as well as how to "set up a "coffee date" and carry out a move to find out if she is willing to pay for our coffee and serve us."

He continued, "After that it becomes a series of gradual steps to remove her entire support structure from her life," the BBC reported.

'Then we 'punish her for a transgression - real or imagined - by having her get our name tattooed on her, leaving her family's home/apartment/town/country, WebCamming/stripping/walking the track for us, getting us girls'.

He then said to 'escalate, escalate, escalate,' the message shows." 

https://documentwomen.com/andrew-tate-call-log

 

Now Ive highlighted that this is nothing to do with just 'immoral acts', these are by the book crimes, we even know the intention behind Tate and his crews crime because he was very proud of them and breaks down his thinking behind them, he even creates a course so that others can do the same crimes which they do  Its actually incredible how unabashed he did this whole thing. Then to complain that youve been wrongfully targeted, im sorry but i dont know what world youre living in. 

Even if i want to give complete benefit of the doubt that Tate was just bantering and doing it for entertainment, he 100% still shouldve been investigated if he was talking about how to do crimes and saying he was doing them, that isnt unjust treatment, do you want the police to just not investigate these types of things? 

So to me the only people that can defend this are heavily biased toward Tate. 

   First off, thanks for the detailed post on his first crime of sex/human trafficking and the lover boy method thingy. Can you do the same for his second apparent charge of tax evasion and money laundering?

   I'll repeat, my main argument is his latest arrest and increase in sentencing over some rumor said by some random streamer named Adin Ross. I then argued after you argued something about injustice without defining what you meant so we're having this sloppy back and forth around injustice, so I argued back by providing a hypothetical, and bringing up another case to parallel such as Maximilian which I hope you've now seen. Yes Maximilian is a bad immoral character, very similar to Andrew Tate/Triston Tate, they are similarly bad people, but my particular problem is when extra condemnation happens afterwards. For example, when Charlie was spreading his defamatory story of Maximilian saying he's a pedo pedo pedo, even though it's within a joking and provocateur character in his gameplays, Charlie makes it seem like Maximilian is a pedo pedo pedo selling CP in his discords, HOWEVER it's a distortion: users were coming to HIS DISCORD AND POSTING those images, which made him repeatedly close and create another discord again and again. At that time, the days and weeks followed was a mob mentality witch hunt onto Maximillian BECAUSE Charlie was a HUGE STREAMER selling trumped up exaggerated story of him being a pervert! So my main point I'm extrapolating from Maximillian's case, and Andrew/Triston Tate's case I'm extrapolating, is that both have a shared problem area of the mob, and even a system of power and mob rule, interpreting incorrectly what that person did, as if Andrew Tate has a sex dungeon actively raping women on a daily basis, oil nude wrestling and BDSM daily, but really he's only guilty of the lover boy and sex/human trafficking and being a pimp evading taxes and money laundering. The characterization of Andrew being some rapey davey on a daily I disagree, but I agree on the current charges but I disagree on extra charges that are baseless and disagree on the witch hunt. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

[Consept]

14 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Can you do the same for his second apparent charge of tax evasion and money laundering?

If you watch the 52 minute clips of him saying his crimes, he breaks down in detail how he evaded tax, its basically through bitcoin and then also he said he lies to the girls about paying tax as well as other things so he can keep most of their money, in fact in one of the clips he claims he made 40k from one 'customer' and that he only paid the girl 1k. 

16 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 I'll repeat, my main argument is his latest arrest and increase in sentencing over some rumor said by some random streamer named Adin Ross

This is wrong, hes not been extradited because of rumour started by Adin Ross. What happened which i thought was clear, is that he was planning on fleeing Romania, most likely because he knew either the case wasnt going to go the way he thought it would or he somehow knew that England wanted to extradite him. The case in England has been worked on for years by a lawyer and representing the girls in question, these are not the same girls from an earlier criminal case that didnt have enough evidence to convict. Both of the cases are rape cases btw. So the extradition was planned or in the process ALREADY.  Where Adin Ross comes in, is that Andrew, knowing that this was going on, was attempting to set something up with Adin to get some content out before he fled because he knows Adin is has a large audience. So he sent a text saying Adin should come to Romania because its 'now or never'. As Adin is pretty dumb, he read the text out which was basically saying that Tate planned to flee, this did get picked up as im sure Tate is being monitored, so with this they took the further action. Tate also has history in doing dumb shit like this because he made several calls in prison that were monitored and recorded him trying to get politicans involved and trying to shut down the girls that were speaking out. 

Im not going to go into Maximillian or whatever that guys called cos i know nothing about that case and i dont see it as relevant. 

25 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

So my main point I'm extrapolating from Maximillian's case, and Andrew/Triston Tate's case I'm extrapolating, is that both have a shared problem area of the mob, and even a system of power and mob rule, interpreting incorrectly what that person did, as if Andrew Tate has a sex dungeon actively raping women on a daily basis, oil nude wrestling and BDSM daily, but really he's only guilty of the lover boy and sex/human trafficking and being a pimp evading taxes and money laundering.

What has been interpreted incorrectly? No one ive heard has said Tate had a sex dungeon and was raping on a daily basis. You say he was only a pimp, human trafficker, evaded taxes and money laundering  for one i dont know why youre minimising that, courts take it very seriously and he could get 10 or 20 years inside if found guilty, btw this is some of the same stuff Epstein was doing and probably not to the same extent as Tate actually as Epstein was mainly doing it for himself. The 'mob' are not happy because of the crimes hes done and his influence on young people. You yourself would say he more than likely has done these things that hes spoken about himself, so if that is the case why in the world would parents be happy about a potential rapist and sex trafficker giving advice to their kids about attracting women? You can make a seperate argument that parents shouldnt let their kids watch him, which is fair enough but i can see why they would want to let it be known that Tate isnt someone you should follow. 

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

The characterization of Andrew being some rapey davey on a daily I disagree, but I agree on the current charges but I disagree on extra charges that are baseless and disagree on the witch hunt. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

No one said hes raping daily, these a strawmen youre putting up btw, but even if he raped only a few times wouldnt that be bad enough to stop him from influencing kids? The new charges are not baseless and apparantly there is at leat enough evidence to have him extradited after the Romania case. 

I think you have some kind of argument to make against witch hunts, but this case is not the one to do that on. Tate has made himself famous by partly talking about how cool he was doing these crimes, if there is a mob against him it would be because of that. Any criminal that goes around talking about their crimes online will no doubt get a lot of pushback, should he literally be a sex trafficker trying to influence kids and no one say anything? Think about what youre arguing for.

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

1 hour ago, Consept said:

If you watch the 52 minute clips of him saying his crimes, he breaks down in detail how he evaded tax, its basically through bitcoin and then also he said he lies to the girls about paying tax as well as other things so he can keep most of their money, in fact in one of the clips he claims he made 40k from one 'customer' and that he only paid the girl 1k. 

This is wrong, hes not been extradited because of rumour started by Adin Ross. What happened which i thought was clear, is that he was planning on fleeing Romania, most likely because he knew either the case wasnt going to go the way he thought it would or he somehow knew that England wanted to extradite him. The case in England has been worked on for years by a lawyer and representing the girls in question, these are not the same girls from an earlier criminal case that didnt have enough evidence to convict. Both of the cases are rape cases btw. So the extradition was planned or in the process ALREADY.  Where Adin Ross comes in, is that Andrew, knowing that this was going on, was attempting to set something up with Adin to get some content out before he fled because he knows Adin is has a large audience. So he sent a text saying Adin should come to Romania because its 'now or never'. As Adin is pretty dumb, he read the text out which was basically saying that Tate planned to flee, this did get picked up as im sure Tate is being monitored, so with this they took the further action. Tate also has history in doing dumb shit like this because he made several calls in prison that were monitored and recorded him trying to get politicans involved and trying to shut down the girls that were speaking out. 

Im not going to go into Maximillian or whatever that guys called cos i know nothing about that case and i dont see it as relevant. 

What has been interpreted incorrectly? No one ive heard has said Tate had a sex dungeon and was raping on a daily basis. You say he was only a pimp, human trafficker, evaded taxes and money laundering  for one i dont know why youre minimising that, courts take it very seriously and he could get 10 or 20 years inside if found guilty, btw this is some of the same stuff Epstein was doing and probably not to the same extent as Tate actually as Epstein was mainly doing it for himself. The 'mob' are not happy because of the crimes hes done and his influence on young people. You yourself would say he more than likely has done these things that hes spoken about himself, so if that is the case why in the world would parents be happy about a potential rapist and sex trafficker giving advice to their kids about attracting women? You can make a seperate argument that parents shouldnt let their kids watch him, which is fair enough but i can see why they would want to let it be known that Tate isnt someone you should follow. 

No one said hes raping daily, these a strawmen youre putting up btw, but even if he raped only a few times wouldnt that be bad enough to stop him from influencing kids? The new charges are not baseless and apparantly there is at leat enough evidence to have him extradited after the Romania case. 

I think you have some kind of argument to make against witch hunts, but this case is not the one to do that on. Tate has made himself famous by partly talking about how cool he was doing these crimes, if there is a mob against him it would be because of that. Any criminal that goes around talking about their crimes online will no doubt get a lot of pushback, should he literally be a sex trafficker trying to influence kids and no one say anything? Think about what youre arguing for.

   I'll be watching the 52 minutes clips of Andrew Tate's break downs of his crimes, but I want to hear your description of his tax evasion?

   Okay, so basically Andrew/Triston Tate were planning on fleeing? But they ended up contacting Adin Ross, and Adin let slip his plans? Okay.

   Me stating Andrew having a sex dungeon, oil nude wrestles and BDSMs with many of the girls is hyperbole and a hypothetical to what the mob of haters/trolls and witch hunts of him saying, them taking a few facts and exaggerating. I'm saying yes Andrew Tate might be guilty of human/sex trafficking, a bit of rape, physical/psychological abuse, lover boy method, tax evasion, scam bitcoins, and sure he'll be found guilty and goes to jail, but my argument is the witch hunt afterwards, the slander and defamation stories of Andrew Tate doing WAY WORSE than what's so far reported. This pattern is not limited to him, just look at YouTube and online drama of slanderous and defamatory stories that sometimes ends people's careers and lives. That's my main argument and issue, when you kick down and beat up an already guilty person way more than the crime, the punishment should ALWAYS fit the crime. It's like if you found a thief guilty, chopping his/her hand off is an exaggeration in this modern world, nowadays it's just for petty theft to get like less than 10-5 years with bail or something lighter that fits the theft crime, you won't find nowadays in USA judges or police chopping hands off thieves yes? Do you see how ridiculous that is? Like a peeping Tom is charged with human indecency, caught masturbating to a naked woman indoors, so judge sentences the guy to have his eyes burned and his dick cut off or something, crazy yes?

   Another 3rd new context is with some people who were criminals but redeemed themselves and do some podcasts, tell their stories, do some coaching, or fitness channels or something. So because of their checkered past they cannot ever interact or be public figures themselves? What if a few of them redeemed themselves? How many apology videos or apologies do they make that would make them redeemed to the eyes of the mob? We can choose to argue this and transition away from the Tate case.

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

but my argument is the witch hunt afterwards, the slander and defamation stories of Andrew Tate doing WAY WORSE than what's so far reported.

I dont think you understand what the terms witch hunt and defamation mean - 'communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person'. I dont see what false statements are being said about Tate, unless youre saying the statements he himself made and were then reported on by the media are defamation, which obviously would be ridiculous. 

Witch hunt - 'A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong'. Again we've established from Tate himself that hes done things that are definitely wrong. There are many other red pill content creators or pick-up artists or even incels that are free to create content and dont have cases against them, even if what they speak about is even worse than Tate, just for example Fresh and Fit, Pearl Davis even Nick Fuentes who outwardly promotes racist beliefs unashamedly doesnt have court cases for abuse or whatever else popping about him although he has been banned from youtube and other platforms. So Tate is not the victim of a witch hunt, hes feeling the repercussions of doing and then speaking publicly about crimes. 

Show me where in any media, Tate being accused of something that there is no evidence for him doing. I have shown you a lot of evidence but you just seem to be saying things without any back up. 

15 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 Another 3rd new context is with some people who were criminals but redeemed themselves and do some podcasts, tell their stories, do some coaching, or fitness channels or something. So because of their checkered past they cannot ever interact or be public figures themselves? What if a few of them redeemed themselves? How many apology videos or apologies do they make that would make them redeemed to the eyes of the mob? We can choose to argue this and transition away from the Tate case.

I have no problem at all with people serving their time or even repenting and then doing something positive, this is actually a great thing when it happens. Problem with Tate is that he was laughing and bragging about his pimping business on podcasts just a couple of months before he got caught. He has never owned up to what hes done in fact hes denied all of it. So i would ask you, if someone killed someone brutally on film and never showed any remorse and even bragged about it, would you really believe that person had redeemed themselves and could give out a positive message?

btw heres some clips of Tate, ones from reddit so click through and watch, the other ill just embed, these are not even videos in the mainstream, they kinda went under the radar. Watch them and tell that Tate is a victim -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/w6jt5y/how_is_this_andrew_tate_video_not_more_widespread/

Notice that the girls locks herself in the bathroom

Is this who youre saying is being unfairly treated?

[Recursoinominado]

On 3/13/2024 at 1:36 AM, Leo Gura said:

The cases are different, with different degrees of crimes and evidence.

What about Trump? 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

What about Trump? 

I'm disappointed in the American legal system when it comes to politicians.

But Trump will be in a lot of trouble if he loses the election.

He already lost $500 million. That's no small thing.

Edited March 18 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

2 hours ago, Consept said:

I dont think you understand what the terms witch hunt and defamation mean - 'communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person'. I dont see what false statements are being said about Tate, unless youre saying the statements he himself made and were then reported on by the media are defamation, which obviously would be ridiculous. 

Witch hunt - 'A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong'. Again we've established from Tate himself that hes done things that are definitely wrong. There are many other red pill content creators or pick-up artists or even incels that are free to create content and dont have cases against them, even if what they speak about is even worse than Tate, just for example Fresh and Fit, Pearl Davis even Nick Fuentes who outwardly promotes racist beliefs unashamedly doesnt have court cases for abuse or whatever else popping about him although he has been banned from youtube and other platforms. So Tate is not the victim of a witch hunt, hes feeling the repercussions of doing and then speaking publicly about crimes. 

Show me where in any media, Tate being accused of something that there is no evidence for him doing. I have shown you a lot of evidence but you just seem to be saying things without any back up. 

I have no problem at all with people serving their time or even repenting and then doing something positive, this is actually a great thing when it happens. Problem with Tate is that he was laughing and bragging about his pimping business on podcasts just a couple of months before he got caught. He has never owned up to what hes done in fact hes denied all of it. So i would ask you, if someone killed someone brutally on film and never showed any remorse and even bragged about it, would you really believe that person had redeemed themselves and could give out a positive message?

btw heres some clips of Tate, ones from reddit so click through and watch, the other ill just embed, these are not even videos in the mainstream, they kinda went under the radar. Watch them and tell that Tate is a victim -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/w6jt5y/how_is_this_andrew_tate_video_not_more_widespread/

Notice that the girls locks herself in the bathroom

Is this who youre saying is being unfairly treated?

   I'll restate my main argument again. Main issue specifically is not about the legality, it's part legal mostly moral. I showed an example here of what I mean:

   Please go watch it, it is relevant to my point being made of when some will just believe a big streamer's story, of them twisting and lying, and ultimately ruining Maximillian's life on the internet. To be clear I'm not defending Andrew Tate or the Maxim guy as they're immoral, I'm specifically against any hyperbole lies about Andrew Tate AFTER that seems fine but it isn't true, I'm against an mob mentality crazy narrative spinning, like he once owned NFTs of 50 naked cartoon women...that he then baits the Incel and red pill teens to buy into. I' using pure logic and hypotheticals because I'm more invested into the defamatory stories that ruins lives, most people just believe them, but later on a few find out it's not true and exaggerated.

Edited March 18 by Danioover9000