/ck/ - Food & Cooking

File: 64 KB, 800x1067, Stop-Thief-When-Colleagues-Steal-From-The-Office-Fridge-298333969-1446226834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:39:31 2019 No.12959906 [Reply] [Original]

>bought cupcakes for work potluck
>am first person to show up in the morning
>set the cupcakes on the counter for everyone to indulge
>girl who has had a stick up her ass about me from day 1 shows up right after me
>sees the cupcakes I brought in
>sets her stuff up right next to mine on the counter
>later that day at 12:30ish before I leave for my delivery area, I see two of the four cupcake packages I brought, unopened
>everyone had left the office for their delivery areas @12 noon
>I come back from my route at 3:45 and see that someone stole my one of my unopened packages of caramel cupcakes and left the other pumpkin flavoured one
>im pretty upset because people usually dont steal and also the pumpkin ones were shite
>the other old ladies say that some other stuff is missing
>one old lady starts texting people
>get a text later that night from the bitch that has it out for me
"I took some small cupcakes, the Caramel ones. One of our coworkers told me to. I thought the lady that told me to take them bought them"

Fuck yeah, im mad

How should I retaliate?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:47:36 2019 No.12959930 >>12959906 If you're white then just consider it reparations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:48:53 2019 No.12959934 >>12959930 Problem was she isnt a nog, just a single mother roastie

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:48:57 2019 No.12959935 I'd say act like an adult man but obviously that ship has sailed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:49:20 2019 No.12959938 >>12959906 rape everyone in the office

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:51:54 2019 No.12959945 >>12959906 Murder suicide

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:56:06 2019 No.12959967 >>12959930 A million whites died to end slavery during the civil war. There are your reparations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:57:11 2019 No.12959974 >>12959906 it's a potluck? isn't the whole point that other people take your shit?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 22:57:30 2019 No.12959975 >>12959930 Black girl detected

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:00:56 2019 No.12959992

>>12959935
Pretty much this.

Or start being a dick and make red velvet ones with two having a spot of nothing but red food coloring. What is she going to do, complain that you didn't mix the batter good enough before she stole it and dyed her mouth? That doesn't count as food tampering as long as you don't admit to doing it on purpose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:01:54 2019 No.12959995 >>12959974 Yeah but we have this rule that if it isnt yours, dont take it. It was a whole new unopened package of 12, while there was an open package with 5 left in it of the same flavour sitting on top.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:05:28 2019 No.12960006 >>12959934 mudshark tho?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:07:04 2019 No.12960014 >>12959906 eat her lunch for the next week

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:11:13 2019 No.12960026 its a work potluck what the fuck were you gonna do, go home and eat 12 cupcakes for yourself you fatass? Once the money is spent, it's spent. Let it go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:13:11 2019 No.12960032 >>12959995 the calamity

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:14:07 2019 No.12960036 >>12960026 When I saw that there was going to be two unopened packages left I told my sister I was gonna bring the unopened packages to her kids birthday party later that day

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:15:42 2019 No.12960047 >>12960006 Just a cunt who doesnt like me because I took her spot as top delivery person

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:16:22 2019 No.12960050 >>12960036 okay then don't make promises you cant follow through on. People do unpredictable shit. Learn to expect the unexpected. This is basic Adulting 101 stuff anon. Is this your first "real" job or something?

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:18:21 2019 No.12960060

>>12959906
Don't retaliate. They're fucking cupcakes. Don't bring food to a potluck if you're going to complain when someone else eats it. Learn from this lesson, and bring shit in your own containers so stealing it isn't as easy as walking away with some prepacked cupcakes.

You can call her out, but she won't get in trouble, you'll seem mean, and at most some new rule will be added which won't matter because she won't do it again if she can get in trouble. Tell her you hope she enjoys them, be the bigger man and plan your shit out better in the future. Bring less food, bring your own containers and label what you care about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:20:05 2019 No.12960067 >>12960050 stop posting

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:20:47 2019 No.12960069 >>12959967 If you think the civil war was about slavery you're a fuckin brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:21:12 2019 No.12960071 >>12960067 stop posting

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:21:44 2019 No.12960072 >>12960067 have sex

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:22:57 2019 No.12960076

>>12959995
You worthless piece of garbage human. It's a fucking potluck - that stupid rule doesn't apply to potluck where you brought in shit for people to take.

Also YOU didn't follow the rules - if you didn't wanted people to open packs without finishing first one you could have put a clearer note - obviously in a nicer words.

Your scumbag ass wanted to just show prepped that you like to share stuff but your plan was to reuse it for sisters kid party all along.

Also just to add I'm not saying that roastie bitch was in right - all I wanna say is fuck her & FUCK YOU TOO

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:23:14 2019 No.12960078

>>12960069
oh my GOD
slavery wasn't the main reason for war, differences in values were, but slavery was a big fucking part of those different values

the north said no to slavery because their industrial economy didnt rely on it while the south said yes because they needed their slaves swiping up that cotton field. slavery is part of the reason the civil war happened u fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:23:39 2019 No.12960080 >>12960050 I would have been fine if anyone else had taken them, its just the fact that this specific cumslut had taken them because she KNEW it was the stuff I brought in. Really burns my bacon, brah.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:27:15 2019 No.12960096

>>12960080
>hi i came to the pot luck because i wanted to feed everybody
>everybody i like that is....
>Becky dont touch my food i dont like you because you think you're a better pizza delivery driver than i am

are you a woman or a faggot because I have never seen a man act more effeminate in my life. Man the fuck up and get over yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:28:23 2019 No.12960101 >>12960096 it's obviously a woman getting mad over very petty mindgames played by her rival

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:29:46 2019 No.12960107

>>12960080
>its just the fact that this specific cumslut had taken them because she KNEW it was the stuff I brought in.

i would steal from your bitch ass too

you have literally no idea if she took it because it was yours dumbass. u dont fucking know. not only that but ur being a whiney bitch about somebody taking something that you were planning on losing

you are god damn insufferable

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:32:16 2019 No.12960121 >>12960078 Not really, you uneducated fucking retard

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:32:47 2019 No.12960123

>>12960076
You dumb nigger, just because I called it a potluck doesnt mean anything, we brought in food because it was someones birthday and everyone forgot to bring shit in the day before and wish the lady a happy birthday. The birthday lady in question is the one that always makes sure everyone gets their leftover shit and that it doesnt get taken if it isnt theirs and she of all people enforces the shit out of that and was one of the old ladies that investigated who had taken the foods without permisson which resulted in cunt face texting about how she "didnt know". And instead of geting assmad, use reading comprehension to infer that I had not originally planned to take the leftover cupcakes to my sister UNTIL I had noticed that there were indeed two leftover packages to take over.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:33:18 2019 No.12960125 >>12960107 add this guy to the rape and kill list, OP

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:33:30 2019 No.12960126 >>12959974 It's common courtesy that, even at a potluck, the person who brought something has the right to keep it afterwards if it's unopened. Have you never been to a social event before?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:33:57 2019 No.12960128 >>12960096 We deliver packages for a shipping company.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:35:16 2019 No.12960134 >>12960123 Be glad someone wanted to eat your shitty food at a company pitch-in, you ungrateful bitch. Everyone should have avoided your food entirely because it was brought in by the company's social leper.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:36:15 2019 No.12960141

>>12960126
>It's common courtesy that, even at a potluck, the person who brought something has the right to keep it afterwards if it's unopened

Absolutely false.
Every pot luck I've ever been to, all the people involved are begging to get rid of their food.
>PLEASE take these leftovers because I really don't want to bring them home.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:37:07 2019 No.12960144

>>12960123
How about you reading comprehension to yourself before switching your stories you insufferable faggot.

What kind of dumb retard calls someones birthday party treat potluck. I think you got what you deserve. Stay assmad over petty shit you worthless subhuman

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:37:12 2019 No.12960146 >>12960141 leftovers are different than packaged shit you faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:38:44 2019 No.12960151 >>12960126 Well by that logic potluck wasn't over and she took stuff during potluck. Your nigger ass is mad cause you were left with shitty cupcakes that you knew nobody would eat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:39:48 2019 No.12960156 >>12960121 HOLY SHIT DUMBASS >>12960135 READ

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:39:55 2019 No.12960157

>>12960146
false.
the basic understanding among normal, socially adjusted people, is when you bring food to a potluck, you got the food FOR the potluck and had no plans to reuse it and be a cheapskate for your nephew's birthday.

You thought you were slick, trying to get brownie points for looking super generous when the opposite was true.

I bet you went back to that break room and counted cupcakes every hour didn't you.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:41:03 2019 No.12960161

She knew what she was doing, especially with them being unopened.
She's a narcissist coward, just smile at her and look into her eyes when you see her, ittl burn her up inside just knowing that you're a normal human being. Those type of people are full of hatred and envy. Seriously look into her eyes for a like 30 seconds with a blank face when you pass by and just leave it at that, and it will drive her mad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:41:30 2019 No.12960163 You should be flattered someone thought they were good enough to steal. No lets get angry at a woman taking free food when no one else was eating them

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:41:40 2019 No.12960165 >>12960144 You too

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:41:51 2019 No.12960166 >>12960156 >being this retarded Dumb shits like you arent even worth educating

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:43:06 2019 No.12960170 >>12960163 I'm on OP's side, he obviously mentioned that she's been consistently rude to him before, and that she knew that they were his.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:43:06 2019 No.12960171

>>12960126
>the person who brought something has the right to keep it afterwards
>if it's unopened
what the fuck are you talking about? if it is unopened? do i suddenly lose the right to what i bring if somebody opens it? you are a god damn retard.

i agree that generally the person who brought the food gets first dibs leaving with it but i would be damned finding any reasonable person bringing food to a potluck they aren't ready to not leave with

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:44:58 2019 No.12960176 >>12960161 First reasonable post on the thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:49:22 2019 No.12960193 >>12960165 Lol I'm happy to see you are assmad & irritated. You won't be able to do shit to that roastie. Lol best of luck seeing her go about her usual day tomorrow while you burn inside AND STAY ASSMAD FAGGOT

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:51:31 2019 No.12960207 >>12960193 K

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:51:35 2019 No.12960208

Here's how I imagine it went down
Narcissist roastie says
>"do you think anybody would mind if take these"

while pretending to not know that OP brought them

Then unsuspecting coworker says

>"go for it who cares"

Then narc roastie blames it on someone telling her to take them so she can cover her tracks and shift the blame.
Then if OP says anything she'll go into full hysteria victim mode, knowing full well she did it intentionally.
These are the type of people that throw rocks and hide their hands, no shame and no self awareness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:52:01 2019 No.12960211 >>12960069 Even if it wasn't, white people freed the slaves. Blacks owe us for that. You would still be in chains if not for us.

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:53:10 2019 No.12960216

>>12960208
no offense or anything but you seem to be projecting your own experiences onto somebody else.

all OP said was he doesn't like her because he think's hes a better pizza driver than her.

What a pathetic and petty competition to have in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:53:22 2019 No.12960218 >>12960208 I feel OP is of same kind. So both sort of got what they deserve

Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:53:51 2019 No.12960220
File: 46 KB, 493x597, 9F86CE28-DE83-4F0E-B39F-0EF80FF7A1ED.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12959906
OP, I’m a law grad. This is theft. It doesn’t matter that you left them out for everyone; you only did so so that everyone could have them. Her taking them is therefore basic common law unlawful taking. If I were you, I would text her back and tell her to replace them with the exact same product and give it back to you. Tell her that if she doesn’t, you will raise a formal grievance procedure with your company for theft.

Best way to deal with this and I guarantee you you’ll get back a new pack. To help you, here is the text you can send:

Hi. Just to let you know, what you have done is theft. That is my property that I brought in for a specific reason, i.e. for everyone else to have. I never bought them for you, nor did I give you permission to take them. Please provide me with a full replacement by end of Monday. If you don’t, I will speak to the office about raising a formal grievance procedure for theft. I am also fine to make a police report, too.

That’s it. Send that. Sounds excessive but believe me, it is indeed theft.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:54:08 2019 No.12960221 >>12960208 None of this even matters because it was a pitch-in and no one expects to bring leftovers home unless your food is shit no one wants. It's not worth getting worked up over something so fucking petty.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:54:28 2019 No.12960223 >>12960216 >Pizza driver my sides fucking top kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:54:54 2019 No.12960227 >>12960208 >i am going to assume the worst of everyone around me holy shit i HATE how normies have invaded this board

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:56:39 2019 No.12960236 >>12960221 Nope. It’s theft. OP didn’t purchase them for her, nor did he give her permission to take them. It doesn’t matter if they cost a dollar or ten thousand dollars; it’s his property to dispose of as he sees fit, not hers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:57:43 2019 No.12960242 >>12960220 do this but also shit on her front porch

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:59:23 2019 No.12960252 >>12960236 >OP didn’t purchase them for her, nor did he give her permission to take them. Permission is implied at a potluck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 22 23:59:55 2019 No.12960256 >>12960227 how is that normie? expecting the worst out of people isnt normalfaggotty

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:02:41 2019 No.12960268 >>12960256 please shut the FUCK up being a petty retard who thinks everyone is out to get u is super fucking normie holy fucking shit. please get this board back to 2008

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:05:08 2019 No.12960278

>>12960252
No, it’s not. The only permission he gave was for others to take his goods from that table as part of a potluck. He gave no permission for someone to take the whole pack, thereby negating what he had consented to, without his specific consent, nor can such consent be implied.

She’s fucked herself, anyway, by confirming in writing that she never sought nor received his consent, by the way. That text can indeed serve as proof she knew she needed some kind of permission but deliberately didn’t seek it from OP.

Slam dunk, I’m afraid.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:08:13 2019 No.12960289

>>12960278
>The only permission he gave was for others to take his goods from that table as part of a potluck.

OP didn't sign a fucking contract stating that, retard. A company pitch-in implies you're giving the food away to your coworkers/the company when you set it down in the communal break room for others to eat. Your bait it shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:09:49 2019 No.12960295 >>12960123 do poor people really potluck like this? When I show up to a potluck I don't bring shit back home whatever you don't eat is thrown out or taken home by the maids or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:11:11 2019 No.12960301 >>12960295 only petty women who want to make sure that the woman they don't like can't eat their food OP are you on your period or something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:11:29 2019 No.12960304 >>12960289 >thinking anything based on "implying" is worth half a shit Retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:12:10 2019 No.12960308 >>12960268 Overusing is curse words and pretending to be a 4chin oldfag is pathetic. You have no self awareness and you're gay and stupid and smelly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:12:53 2019 No.12960314 >>12960304 If it's not in writing it's not worth shit, retard. You failed law school.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:13:38 2019 No.12960319 >>12960069 oh boy imagine a person claiming the upheaval of the south's entire economic basis wasn't the cause of the civil war

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:14:04 2019 No.12960320 She knew what she was doing and has probably been taking petty jabs at OP for a long time. This is spiritual warfare but you have to have discernment to realize that.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:16:38 2019 No.12960335

>>12960289
Haha. You have no idea what you’re talking about, dummy. He doesn’t need a contract. All he needs is to establish his property was taken without his permission. And it was. This is, in principle, the same as if someone leaves clothes in a bag outside a charity shop for the charity shop to have next day. If a person comes across that bag and takes it, that’s theft, because the only reason it was left was for that specific purpose. It doesn’t matter if it was left like that, it doesn’t matter even if it had no note attached to it. It’s common law unlawful taking (which is then defined as theft by various statutory mechanisms).

This is very distinct from throwing something out or abandoning it which is basically what you’re attempting to ‘argue’. OP only left those goods on that table for a specific purpose, none of which included letting anyone just take the whole pack and thereby negating that purpose without OP’s specific consent.

Want more help on understanding how the law actually works?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:17:09 2019 No.12960337 is there ANY reason you don't like her besides your petty little competition over who's the best pizza driver?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:17:21 2019 No.12960338 >>12960268 this is the mongolian rug weaving forum you missed the bus to 'fingerbox memorial 2008' nine stops ago

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:18:14 2019 No.12960343 >>12960335 when you bring food to a pot luck, the food becomes public property

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:19:33 2019 No.12960348

>>12960314
Wrong. Common law contract only requires three things to be enforceable: 1) Offer, 2) Acceptance, 3) Consideration. That’s it. That’s why verbal contracts are enforceable in common law systems. Writing is helpful for judges to construct a contract, but not obligatory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:20:35 2019 No.12960353

>>12960343
It's about the principle, she was too cowardly to ask OP for them because she knows she's a petty narcissist.
And then went and blamed it on another coworker telling her to take them, still never mentioning OP even though she saw him set them down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:20:53 2019 No.12960354 >>12960343 this. those cupcakes stopped belonging to op the moment they were placed into the potluck and ANY court would throw out your fucking bullshit theft accusation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:21:22 2019 No.12960357 >>12960343 Except it doesn’t. It’s not a legal ‘public space’ anyway. Good job on not being able to rebut my obvious knowledge, too, by the way. Concede accepted, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:21:28 2019 No.12960358 here you go. any food offered up at a potluck is legally considered a gift. the lawfag troll is proven to be full of shit. btfo. http://www.rightattitudes.com/2016/05/06/party-potluck-leftovers-etiquette/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:22:24 2019 No.12960363 >>12960354 Give up. It’s been proven you haven’t got a clue.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:23:06 2019 No.12960366

>>12960335
>All he needs is to establish his property was taken without his permission

This should have been done before bringing your food into a company pitch-in for others to eat. Doing it after the fact would be laughed out of court and this would be a civil case, anyway--not a criminal case. Usually you have to sign a waver/sign up for the pitch-in where the rules are plainly laid out that you're giving your food over to the company. OP could have made a "verbal contract" by announcing to the breakroom that he intended to take any uneaten food home with him while a supervisor was present--but he didn't. So he's shit out of luck and you're a fucking autist. If I left a box of pizza that I bought for the company to eat and someone took it home/threw it away after I left it unattended, you couldn't fucking prosecute someone over this lol. Tons of old food gets tossed daily at places that I've worked it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:23:45 2019 No.12960368 >>12960358 Except that actually proves what I’ve said, seething troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:23:57 2019 No.12960369 >>12959906 yeah this is something that doesn't need to be a personal drama nor on this board. get laid and grow up. your best revenge will not being a pathetic queer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:24:25 2019 No.12960371 >>12960348 >That’s why verbal contracts are enforceable in common law systems. Which OP never made, you absolute sub 70 IQ retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:25:21 2019 No.12960373 >>12960368 you're just spiraling now. its kind of sad really.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:25:24 2019 No.12960374 >>12960366 Pure nonsense. All common law theft has the same basic doctrine: unlawful taking with the intention to permanently deprive. Nothing ‘civil’ about this at all. It’s straight up criminal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:26:21 2019 No.12960376 >>12960374 >Pure nonsense. just stop fucking posting. Your bait is bad and anyone that took a 100 level business law course knows you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:26:24 2019 No.12960377 >>12960373 Whatever you say, seething troll. Try get an education. It helps ;)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:27:27 2019 No.12960383 >>12960376 > business law course My fucking sides.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:28:19 2019 No.12960388 >>12960383 >argues business law badly >gets BTFO >lel business law MIRITE retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:29:17 2019 No.12960391 >>12960377 id say its spiraling you keep saying the same words over and over again like they hurt worse the 5th time said

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 00:30:51 2019 No.12960395 >>12960368 >proves you wrong >"no you see that actually proves me RIGHT" just stop dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:19:29 2019 No.12960702 Fucking cup cakes. Stop being a little bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:21:09 2019 No.12960709 is this what wagies do lmao seething over cupcakes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:24:33 2019 No.12960717 File: 145 KB, 286x200, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12960709 THEY WERE MY CUPCAKES!! SHE STOLE THEM FROM ME!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:29:28 2019 No.12960730 >>12960193 roastie detected

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:31:15 2019 No.12960733 >>12960211 White people put blacks in chains in the US.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:34:30 2019 No.12960741 >>12960278 Exactly, taking a whole package of something and saying "oh, it's a potluck, who cares?" is nigger behavior.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:38:03 2019 No.12960747 [DELETED]

>>12960733
Blacks in Africa enslaved other blacks in Africa, sold them to Portegeuse and Dutch Jews who ran the Atlantic slave trade, and then sold them to the American colonies (and Brazil, and the Middle East, and mainland Europe). Whites were also the only race to EVER stop slavery voluntarily, in fact African nations today still take other Africans for slaves. Slavery is bad, and whites stopped it. You are welcome. Sit down, be humble.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:39:44 2019 No.12960750 >>12959930 Aha have sex

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:41:14 2019 No.12960754 >>12960747 Look at all these old, tired overused white lies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:42:19 2019 No.12960756 >>12960754 Sorry you can't accept the truth my black friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:43:27 2019 No.12960759 >>12960747 Wow you really owned the libs with this one, Cletus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:44:05 2019 No.12960761 All these white knighting faggots in this thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:44:31 2019 No.12960762 >>12960759 I'm just a fan of understanding history as to not repeat it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:47:42 2019 No.12960775 >>12960759 >getting offended over actual facts >liberal Checks out

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:48:34 2019 No.12960780 >>12960762 I liked the whole joooz stuff it was a real eye opener

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:49:19 2019 No.12960785

>>12960733
Would you rather still be in Africa? Or would you rather your great-great-great-great grandfather was a slave and get to live in America? Honest question.

Slavery was bad, but it's a price you never had to pay, your ancestor did, and you get to reap the benefit of living in America. That's a pretty good deal desu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:50:45 2019 No.12960787 >>12960785 why did you assume he's black? talk about obsessed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:51:52 2019 No.12960789 >>12960780 Yea, Jews have seemingly always dealt in human misery to turn a profit. A truly despicable people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:53:14 2019 No.12960790 >>12960789 but if they're so evil, what's up with this post? >>12960785 sounds like they're really the good guys after all. hrmm.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:53:20 2019 No.12960791 >>12960787 Well he's black or a Liberal, either way he needed to be educated.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:59:13 2019 No.12960802

>>12960790
An act of greed and evil can still produce an unforeseen good. Blacks suffered through slavery, but now they enjoy American citizenship. equality, and a much better life than they would've had in Africa. Whites enjoyed profiting off slavery for awhile, but now have to deal with the crime, violence, and welfare the black population brought to America. The Jews really came out on top by profiting off the slave trade, never dealing with the consequences, and even to this day use blacks as political manipulation to boost votes for Liberal policies and candidates (which ultimately hurts black and white Americans alike).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:00:41 2019 No.12960806 >>12959906 This lady that you think has a stick in her ass about you. Are you sure you're not the one with the bad attitude?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:04:31 2019 No.12960814

>>12960802
>Whites enjoyed profiting off slavery for awhile
>The Jews really came out on top by profiting off the slave trade

So if they both profited off of slavery, why bother even making the white/Jew dichotomy? Seems kind of redundant to me and like an excuse to slip jooz in somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:07:26 2019 No.12960819 >>12960806 GIMMIE MY FUCKING CUPCAKES!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:10:58 2019 No.12960827

>>12960814
The Jews literally owned the transatlantic slave trade that supplied slaves to the world, including America. Jews are the entire reason black slavery was even a thing. Traditionally slavery always used to happen within a single racial group between the upper and lower classes (a.k.a white on white, asian on asian, black on black, etc). The Jews changed that when they went to Africa and traded with African war lords for their slaves, who they then shipped around the world. The fact that they are Jewish is just the truth, whether you choose to believe that part is important is up to you. I personally believe it is an important detail.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:12:55 2019 No.12960830 >>12959906 what do jews have to do with cupcakes?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:14:03 2019 No.12960831

>>12960295
This is what I’m trying to think, whenever I make shit for company events I expect it to be all eaten, if it wasn’t then sure I’ll dump it or take it home

If someone wants some to take I’m packing them some of it

Who the fuck acts soo stuck up about people taking leftovers they’re not stealing your god damn tupperware

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:16:14 2019 No.12960840

>>12960814
Why hide it? It is factual history whether you like it or not. I find it very interesting that you think jews should never have been mentioned. Why? What are you attempting to conceal? What purpose does it serve? Do you even know or are these just preprogrammed responses that fall out of your mouth like shit from an ass?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:16:16 2019 No.12960841 >>12959930 shutup nigger

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:19:21 2019 No.12960852

>>12960840
It's hilarious that you retards think this is some sort of huge revelation. No one cares that jooooooozzzz traded in slaves. They're white, anyway. Ashkenazi literally translate to "Jews of Germany" and they're German and Polish/Slavic converts. This has nothing to do with /ck/ and you're autistic for sperging about it in a thread about a cupcake heist lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:21:19 2019 No.12960860 >>12960852 >They're white, anyway. According to Jews themselves, they are not. >It's hilarious that you retards think this is some sort of huge revelation. It's just the truth. I've found that the truth scares the Jew more than anything in the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:21:34 2019 No.12960862 >>12960852 >surely this shitpost and weak adhoms will divert attention from the original topic!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:22:22 2019 No.12960866 >>12960852 Hello, Juden.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:26:09 2019 No.12960875

>>12960860
>>12960862
>>12960866
There is nothing funnier than a couple of brainlets sperging on and on about Joooozzz like they made some sort of secret, grand discovery that no one knows about. Finally I truly see. Whites still put black people in chains and profited from it by your own admission. No one cares if some of them were white Jews LMFAO.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:31:44 2019 No.12960891 >>12960875 I am sorry you are not historically literate enough to recognize the importance of Jews part in slavery and oppression of blacks. Perhaps you will one day listen to reason and recognize the truth.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:35:55 2019 No.12960899

>>12960891
I understand it but I've read the same sperging from you retards for what--like at least a decade now? It's old hat. Everyone has read it a million fucking times and it has nothing to do with this thread but it doesn't really matter because the thread was shit, anyway. Just like all of your posts ITT.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:36:03 2019 No.12960900

>>12959906
If it was anyone else id let it go but this bitch shall burn. Either publicly shame the bitch/slap your own poster telling about her dirty lil secret or if shes alergic to something make sure the ingredient is there. Be sure to tell everyone its there tho.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:37:10 2019 No.12960902 >>12959906 I don't get it. You bought the cupcakes for a potluck and then got upset someone "stole" them? Weren't you going to give them away anyway?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:37:43 2019 No.12960906 >>12960899 You'd be surprised how few people know the extent of Jewish evil, actually.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:42:00 2019 No.12960913 >>12960902 > I don't get it. You put $10 on a tray taking donations at work and then got upset someone "stole" it? Weren't you going to give it away anyway?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:45:56 2019 No.12960923 >>12960913 She wasn't taking donations for her cupcakes. It was a company pitch in and that picture OP posted was obviously placed on the refrigerator for people that brought in a personal lunch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:47:13 2019 No.12960928 >>12960913 its more like >You put $10 on a tray labelled free money at work and then got upset someone took it? Weren't you going to give it away anyway?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:51:05 2019 No.12960936 >>12960923 >>12960928 It's about only taking your "fair share". If I brought a tin of caviar for a party, and some cunt took it home with her at some point during the middle of the party, I would be PISSED. It's no different with the cupcakes.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:54:16 2019 No.12960941

>>12960936
>sets her stuff up right next to mine on the counter
>later that day at 12:30ish before I leave for my delivery area, I see two of the four cupcake packages I brought, unopened
>everyone had left the office for their delivery areas @12 noon
>everyone had left the office

The pitch in was over and that was basically abandoned food. OP should have taken the box back after it was over instead of being salty someone decided to nab them hours later.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:57:44 2019 No.12960942

>>12960941
He was out on his deliveries. So she stole them while people were out doing their jobs, and then went home before OP could ask around where his cupcakes went. What she did was sneaky and underhanded. She didn't even wait until the end of the work day before she took them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:58:46 2019 No.12960944 >>12960941 A whole unopened box is not a "fair share" you fat greedy piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:59:14 2019 No.12960945 >>12960942 She (and I know it was a she) had 30 minutes to scoop those cupcakes back up if she intended to take them home. The pitch in was over at 12 and she left at 12:30.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:01:32 2019 No.12960948 >>12960945 So in your opinion since OP left them someplace for 30 minutes to long, that suddenly makes them "free". That's fucking stupid. You're stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:01:51 2019 No.12960951 >>12960899 idf trying a bit hard if i'm being honest

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:02:24 2019 No.12960952 >>12960944 Then you should have taken them home when you had the chance, retard. It's not the company's fault you're a fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:03:03 2019 No.12960954 >>12960941 >the other old ladies say that some other stuff is missing So how about the other food that cunt stole? Was that justified as well?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:03:58 2019 No.12960957 >>12960948 The fucking company pitch in made them free by default you utter fucking moron. But they were still available when it was over and her dumb ass still abandoned them when she went on her route.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:05:03 2019 No.12960959 >>12960952 No, it's the fat and greedy cunt who stole OP's cupcakes fault.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:05:42 2019 No.12960960

>>12960954
It wasn't stolen if it was free, retard. Do you even know what a voluntary company pitch in is? The morons should have taken it with them instead of leaving it in the break room after it was over. My old factory would have ditched everything then and there if it was sitting out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:05:48 2019 No.12960961 >>12959906 First world problems right here

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:06:23 2019 No.12960963 >>12960954 begging the question based on an assumption damn, maybe you should get some books on tape for your rig senpai

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:06:46 2019 No.12960964 >>12960951 Please sperg more about the Jews dude I learn so much.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:08:19 2019 No.12960966 >>12960957 If you steal someone's leftovers that they paid for (or made) and took the time and effort to bring to work so EVERYONE could enjoy, know that everyone thinks you're a thief and a FAT GREEDY CUNT.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:08:55 2019 No.12960971 bring cyanide cupcakes to the office

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:09:39 2019 No.12960973 >>12960966 The pitch in was over, retard. It was abandoned food that OP was too stupid to take with her. You're dumb as fuck and I'd take your leftovers too just because you're a stupid fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:10:03 2019 No.12960978 >>12960960 It wasn't the company that stole OP's cupcakes (or everyone elses food) it was one fat greedy cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:11:39 2019 No.12960980 >>12960978 When you bring in food for a pitch in, it no longer becomes your food--it becomes EVERYONE'S food. And that includes that fat cunt that took the box because OP LEFT IT THERE. Retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:11:51 2019 No.12960981 >>12960973 OP came back after driving his route and it was gone. Meaning the cunt took it during the middle of the day before his shift was over. What are you even talking about?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:13:53 2019 No.12960985

>>12960980
>it becomes EVERYONE'S food
Not the whole unopened box you fat greedy prick. Maybe it would be acceptable to have a couple of an opened tray, but taking an entire unopened box home of someone elses food is a fat greedy cunt thing to do and thievery, plain and simple.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:15:30 2019 No.12960988

>>12960981
The pitch in was over at 12, retard. Learn to read: >>12960941
>everyone had left the office for their delivery areas @12 noon

OP left at 12:30 so she had 30 minutes to take the food with her but she left it. I know you're a NEET that has never worked a day in his life, but typically at company pitch ins, there is a designated eating time and then the pitch in ends. If OP didn't want her cupcakes nabbed later on, she should have either made it known during or shortly after the pitch in or--get this--taken the box with her before beginning her route. She had a full 30 minutes to do so but abandoned the food, anyway.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:16:34 2019 No.12960991

>>12960973
The food was either for everyone in the office during the party, or meant to be saved for whoever brought it in at the end of the work day. It isn't acceptable to take an entire unopened box of food after the party is already over for your own consumption at home. That is just straight up stealing someone's food.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:17:46 2019 No.12960994

>>12960928
Except it’s not. There was no sign ‘free food’. Everybody doing it and partaking understood that anything set out was conditional on it being a potluck - a reciprocal sharing of items but that did not abandon title to them. Exactly the same as if OP put a $10 note on a collection tray. Even though it’s in the open, even though he’s giving his money away. The crucial difference is his INTENT. He never intended to supply ‘free food’; he intended to engage in a reciprocal sharing of items, and also did so with the expectation that anything left unopened he could take him himself or give to someone else of his choice, etc. He retained title throughout.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:19:24 2019 No.12960998

>>12960988
OP left the food to do his route, and probably didn't care if some people snacked on it during the day. Coming back after his route at the end of the work day and seeing that someone stole an entire tray of unopened cupcakes and left work would be infuriating. It is poor form you fat greedy fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:21:05 2019 No.12961002 >>12960998 How would you know anything about workplace etiquette, sped?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:21:21 2019 No.12961005

>>12960998
It's poor form but it's not stealing, you retard. Don't you know the difference? Don't use that word when you don't seem to know what it means. That food became property of the company's employees the moment she voluntarily brought in food for the pitch in. And she most likely signed up for it, too, so there is a paper trail.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:22:08 2019 No.12961007 >>12960988 >nabbed >a synonym for "stole" I'm glad you finally agree that OP's cupcakes were stolen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:22:32 2019 No.12961008 >>12961005 It is theft. For the reasons outlined earlier. You may not think so in your personal opinion, but that’s not the law.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:23:18 2019 No.12961013 >>12961007 >>12961005 ITT: one dude attempts to explain the concept of a voluntary company pitch in to a board filled with jobless neets

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:24:01 2019 No.12961015

>>12961005
>That food became property of the company's employees the moment she voluntarily brought in food for the pitch in.
What a surprise, the fat, greedy, selfish piece of shit also has Socialist tendencies. You disgust me. If you ever took a tray of my cupcakes I would break your jaw you fat worthless cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:24:25 2019 No.12961017 >>12961008 >but that’s not the law. I think you failed legal school, moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:25:20 2019 No.12961021 >>12961015 does momma know you use her laptop to role play online?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:26:37 2019 No.12961025 >>12961017 Not that anon, but bringing cupcakes to work doesn't suddenly make those cupcakes not your legal property. OP owns them legally.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:27:39 2019 No.12961029 >>12961021 How much do you weigh? Be honest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:30:10 2019 No.12961037 >>12961025 post proof

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:30:43 2019 No.12961039 >>12961029 damn that turn about nearly convinced me that you are in education and employment

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:30:53 2019 No.12961040

>>12961005
> became property of the company's employees
No, that’s wrong. ‘Property’ has a legal definition: whomever holds title. There are only two way you can receive title: as a bona fide purchaser for value, or as a grantee (gifts and trust property). Even if you put a sign saying ‘free food’ or ‘this is my rubbish’, you still retain title. That’s why if your local council goes through your rubbish or recycles it, they can only do so under specific statute for that specific use. You can never pick up someone else’s property and claim you have title unless it’s specifically granted to you in only these two ways. This includes if you find something lost - you can claim it against the rest of the world, but not against the original owner. If they come looking for it, you have to hand it over.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:30:57 2019 No.12961041

>>12961005
>That food became property of the company's employees the moment she voluntarily brought in food for the pitch in.
One for Mary. One for Zach. One for Danielle. One for Michael. And a whole tray for fat greedy Cunt. Hmmm. That doesn't seem quite fair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:31:58 2019 No.12961045 >>12961017 Entirely incorrect. Save your personal attacks and rebut with your own knowledge of the law.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:34:45 2019 No.12961056 >>12961040 >blah blah blah She voluntarily gave her property to the company moron. That's the entire point of a voluntary pitch in. That's why you're required to sign up for them.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:38:19 2019 No.12961065

>>12961056
Except that’s also entirely incorrect, and you’re simply reaching. OP retains title to those goods. Taking those goods from him without his consent and with the intention of permanently depriving him of them (the mens rea element) is theft under the law.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:39:16 2019 No.12961066

>>12960141
People have the right to choose whether they want to offer their shit to people to take home or whether they want to keep it.
You don't decide to keep something that belongs to someone else just because you want it. If it isn't offered, it's not open for taking. People bring food to events to share with people AT THE EVENT, not to feed a broke ass greedy bitch at home.

>>12960157
fucking retard

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:42:51 2019 No.12961071

>>12961065
>OP retains title to those goods.

Post proof lmfao. OP gave up the title when she gave her stupid fucking shartmart cupcakes over by signing a form volunteering to pitch in. I've never worked at a company that didn't have you sign a document outlining that you're giving the food away voluntarily.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:44:12 2019 No.12961074

>>12961056
>She voluntarily gave her property to the company moron.
No he didn't. The company doesn't own the fucking food just because the employees bring it in. I know this is hard for you, but think of it as employees bringing in big lunches and then sharing them. Would someone stealing your lunch out of the fridge and then bringing it home because "oh I didn't think it was a big deal or that you wanted it". Would that be okay? The company doesn't own the food just because you bring it in.

Here's a scenario that will put it straight for you. If someone brought in food tainted with poison and someone eats it an dies, would the company be liable or the person who brought in the food? That's right, the person who brought it in, because they own and offered the food, the company has no ownership of the food at all. they simply facilitated the potluck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:44:39 2019 No.12961075 >>12960072 dilate

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:45:14 2019 No.12961079

>>12961071
You don’t get a little certificate of title every time you buy something, stupid. It’s implied into the fact, as I say, that you are a bona fide purchaser for value - which OP became the minute he handed over the cash for them at the store. The title in the goods the store had passed to him when he exchanged money for them.

The more you know.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:45:29 2019 No.12961080

>>12961074
>Would someone stealing your lunch out of the fridge and then bringing it home because "oh I didn't think it was a big deal or that you wanted it". Would that be okay? The company doesn't own the food just because you bring it in.

This is a completely different scenario and you know it. You're just baiting for (you)s at this point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:46:07 2019 No.12961084 >>12961071 >he thinks signing up for a potluck is the same as signing a legal document You simplistic fat moron lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:46:59 2019 No.12961087 >>12959934 oh she wants it bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:47:07 2019 No.12961088 >>12961079 lmfao shouldn't have signed up for the pitch in then, retard. you're just going in circles.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:47:09 2019 No.12961089

>>12961080
>Here's a scenario that will put it straight for you. If someone brought in food tainted with poison and someone eats it an dies, would the company be liable or the person who brought in the food? That's right, the person who brought it in, because they own and offered the food, the company has no ownership of the food at all. they simply facilitated the potluck.
Respond to that part. Since you keep implying that the company owns the food.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:48:11 2019 No.12961091 >>12961084 It is, retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:48:15 2019 No.12961092 >>12961088 >pitch in Why do you keep calling it that? Are you a britcuck, or something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:49:19 2019 No.12961094 >>12961089 >If someone brought in food tainted with poison and someone eats it an dies, would the company be liable or the person who brought in the food? The company and the retard would be liable here, actually. lmfao you're dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:49:35 2019 No.12961096 >>12961091 Hahaha oh my god dude. You are not very bright, eh? I've heard all I needed to. You are a bonafide moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:50:20 2019 No.12961098 >>12961096 All of theses (you)s and still 42 posters. You're obsessed, retard.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:50:25 2019 No.12961099

>>12961088
No, you are. There is simply no way OP could have signed a document giving up his common law rights including in goods that he retains common law title to. You keep relying on this same subversion as though it’s a given (even though you’ve supplied no proof of it) but I can assure you: a) no such document exists, and b) if it did exist, it would be unenforceable, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:50:43 2019 No.12961101 >>12961092 We don't pitch in England. That's a baseball term. We bowl to the batsman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:51:36 2019 No.12961103 >>12961096 You have lost spectacularly. But, please, do continue making a complete fool of yourself.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:53:49 2019 No.12961108

>>12961094
Wrong. The company would be liable under the rules of vicarious liability for any civil claim - but the person bringing them in would come under either criminal law, or a claim in tort dependent on the circumstances. If deliberate: crime. If negligent: tort (which can also include imprisonment).

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:53:49 2019 No.12961109

>>12961099
would donating food to a company's event not be granting it away though?
re: collection plate if you put your money in do you really have the ability to go back and take it out after the service is over because you decide you want to buy some gum?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:54:23 2019 No.12961110 >>12961099 lmfao at this bong sperging about cupcake law contracts for a fucking cupcake. things work different here in freedomland.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:55:25 2019 No.12961114 >>12961109 >>12961103 >>12961099 >still 42 posters Why are you arguing with yourself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:01:46 2019 No.12961130 >>12961108 So they're both liable then? lmfao argue with yourself some more, dude. it's entertaining.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:03:09 2019 No.12961133 >>12961110 >freedom land Not even allowed real cheese. Cuck.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:06:33 2019 No.12961139

>>12961109
In the case of the collection plate, yes, you retain title. This has come up in a lot of complex charity law cases because title rescinds only when they spend the money. This is why most charities are set up as trusts - the minute you hand the money over, you’re technically a settlor (someone who makes a trust) and so you grant the charity rights as a trustee (and which gives them title). But if it’s a collection plate, yes, you can take your money back under the same rule: they haven’t exercised the grant. Same rule applies to gifts - if, like Cobain’s daughter, you gift a rare guitar to your boyfriend, you transfer title to him immediately. His receipt is the exercise of grant. So, that’s important to understand: there’s a point where the recipient actually exercises their right in your gift. This is the same reason why you get rare cases where someone’s refused a settlement from a will. They need to exercise receipt.

So, no, it’s not possible to just relinquish title for a potluck. You also can’t be made to give up your rights in title via contract. Like I said earlier: contracts are, by definition, the offering and accepting of items for some type of value. If no value is exchanged, there’s no contract.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:10:02 2019 No.12961148

>>12961110
No, they don’t. America is part of the great common law system. But for statutory differences and case law, the same common law rules apply. U.K. and USA judgements are also persuasive between the two. We often got cases where the judge followed a US judge’s reasoning. A lot of them in the law of restitution as it’s America that has refined that area over the last century. Pretty spectacularly, too.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:11:50 2019 No.12961155

>>12961130
No. They’re not both liable. One is liable under one set of laws, the other another. You’re conflating them and the person you were replying to is still correct. The person bringing them in would still be liable individually, not as an employee.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:12:05 2019 No.12961158 >>12961148 Incorrect. US law is based on UK common law. UK legal precedence always has taken place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:12:08 2019 No.12961159 >>12961133 Expert opinion says America has superior cheese. We just need another Judgement of Paris type deal to btfo yurop yet again in the public eye.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:13:53 2019 No.12961166 >>12961158 They’re both common law systems. The US has its own stature and case law that takes precedence but it’s still a common law system. As I said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:14:21 2019 No.12961168 >>12961139 good to know, while academic it seems OP actually is getting robbed. here I thought he was just salty about leftovers getting sniped

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:17:17 2019 No.12961177

>>12961155
>No. They’re not both liable
>One is liable under one set of laws, the other another.

Which means they're both liable as you outlined here. >>12961108
>The company would be liable under the rules of vicarious liability for any civil claim - but the person bringing them in would come under either criminal law, or a claim in tort dependent on the circumstances. If deliberate: crime. If negligent: tort (which can also include imprisonment).

There are still the same amount of posters ITT and you have autism. It's the funny kind of autism, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:20:18 2019 No.12961181 this is a great thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:20:22 2019 No.12961183 >>12959906 >bring cupcakes for people to eat >get mad when people eat then ????

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:22:30 2019 No.12961189 >>12961183 >get mad when one person brings home an unopened box to eat them at their leisure Fixed that for you, bud.

>>	None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 05:23:09 2019 No.12961190 >>12959906 take it to /hr/ not /ck/ it'll be a lot more productive and possibly even get her dumb ass fired

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:24:00 2019 No.12961191 >>12959906 >cupcakes never ever, ever bring cake food to a party again. That is garbage food fit only for swine. honestly I'd bring some winter squash and a pressure cooker. Peel it and dice it, and cook it right there. squash is delicious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:24:33 2019 No.12961192 >>12961183 OP still has legal rights to the cupcakes under the pastry exclusion clause of 1966

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:26:01 2019 No.12961198 >>12961190 Read the law Bong's posts carefully and you'll see that he's a masterful troll. There is no legal claim here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:27:03 2019 No.12961201 >>12961191 Well at least no one would want to take that shit home at the end of the day besides you.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:28:05 2019 No.12961203

>>12961168
He is. This is definably theft. If it interests you, the term ‘theft’ usually applies to a statutory definition. In common law systems, the common law is judge-made law (precedent). The common law, however, is secondary to legislative law (made by whatever your legislature is). So, if your legislature makes law, that disapplies any common law in that area. This is why most legislatures have produced statutes dealing with stealing - and this is theft legislation (in the U.K. it all comes under the Theft Act, and you will have similar in the US).

But these statutes still require judicial interpretation: a) to apply the statute correctly on the facts of the case, and b) to ensure certain criteria are met to apply it. And one of these criteria is the mens rea element. This can either be defined in the statute or in case law. And with any stealing, there is only one common law rule: the taking of something without someone’s consent in order to permanently deprive them of it. That is known as common law unlawful taking. Same rule, across all common law systems. The only way it can be disapplied is if the legislature specifically makes law to disapply it.

So yes, she’s a thief. She meets the mens rea requirement for the common law offence. She took, without consent, with the intention to permanently deprive. That’s precisely what the court will look for. If she took them planning to return them later, then that’s the tort of conversion which, crucially, changes just that mental element. If the mens rea is met, she satisfies the conditions for the charge and conviction. The common law takes stealing very seriously. Not interested in value, either. It can be a rock on your property someone walks off with without your permission to keep for themselves, and that’s unlawful taking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:29:45 2019 No.12961205 >>12961177 I’ve explained it twice now. I am sorry you’re too stupid to understand it, but that’s not my problem. I’m only really doing this for the enlightenment and interest of everyone else following.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:37:39 2019 No.12961222

>>12961205
You're being autistic about this. By "liable" I meant that both parties would be at risk of being in legal trouble which you admitted would be true. Whether either party would be liable under civil or criminal law wasn't what I was arguing. Obviously if someone fed someone poisoned food during company time, both the company and the person that brought it in would be liable. You admitted that the company would be liable from a civil standpoint and the person that brought it in would be liable from a criminal standpoint if it was intentional or a civil standpoint if it was negligence. I understand you perfectly. I'm not sure why you're being such sperg about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:41:33 2019 No.12961237 >>12961201 freshly cooked winter squahs? it tastes like sweet egg yolk. absolutely delicious and nutricious. cup cakes are garbage food that belongs in a pig trough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:46:20 2019 No.12961250 File: 21 KB, 200x300, 1514450886147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12960242

None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 05:52:21 2019 No.12961265

>>12961198
of course not anything from a legal stand point, but if theres issues between co-workers and she has other notes on her file already it's entirely possible
it's a bitch move and this shit is really a common problem that stems from a lack of respect, whether it happened to op or not

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:54:48 2019 No.12961269

>>12961265
Actually, I take that back--the Bong obviously knows his stuff and a case could be made here, but it just seems like it would not be worth the legal fees and the potential loss of a job if you end up losing the case over a 4 dollar box of cupcakes. I just think the entire thing is ridiculous.

>>	None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 05:56:37 2019 No.12961272 >>12961269 yeah thats why I say HR it gets them in about as much shit as it's worth

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:58:33 2019 No.12961275 >>12961159 >pasteurized milk product Not cheese.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:58:37 2019 No.12961276 >>12961272 Yeah, I'd definitely try and keep this within the company/try to get the bitch fired instead of seeking litigation over something that I believe is quite minor.

None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 06:01:49 2019 No.12961282
File: 1.78 MB, 400x276, jakelaugh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12961276
it's probably enough to stop them from getting a raise easily since the managers will be forced to talk to them about their actions and remember them as 'the bitch who steals cupcakes' no matter how good they do at their actual job
it demonstrates either a lack of team play
or if they play dumb, a lack of critical thinking

both of which are absolutely required in the workplace

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:05:39 2019 No.12961293

this thread should serve as a time capsule for the low point of the human species.

What kind of giant gaping vagina cries about a few cupcakes from a potluck, followed by amerifats and their civil war debate, the jdf conspiracy clowns and some random reddit first year law student trying to win his first debate.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:08:17 2019 No.12961306

>>12961282
>managers will be forced to...

lol you mean the spineless ineffectual lot? forced to do something? they just do what they want and don't do what they don't. they're entirely ineffective...

most of the time managers just skirt around the issue or get really passive aggressive. that's management for you. lacking in humanity and lacking in ability to effectively deal with actual human situations beyond trying fruitlessly to gain and maintain power and control

None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 06:12:10 2019 No.12961315

>>12961306
yeah and they'll be passive aggressive towards her
it doesn't matter how shit they are they're the ones in charge and if you don't like it go work somewhere else

go buy and eat a dozen cupcakes to drown your sorrows if you don't want to handle a shitty coworker like an adult, at least food still likes you right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:16:50 2019 No.12961325 >>12959906 Eat her food the next time she brings it in.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:17:31 2019 No.12961329

>>12960319
>upheaval of the south's entire economic basis
You do understand that freeing slaves was something promised to get black people to fight on the side of the north because they were initially losing? That there were originally no plans to free slaves when the succession happened?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:18:28 2019 No.12961334 >>12961315 they'll be passive aggressive towards the one who brought the non-problem to their attention

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:19:49 2019 No.12961339 >>12961293 It's not about the cupcakes, it's a matter of principle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:23:46 2019 No.12961350 >>12961315 >>12961334 It doesn't matter who they're passive aggressive towards. Managers are cycled out every three or four years. Actual workers are retained much longer.

None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 06:28:02 2019 No.12961355

>>12961334
alright then they'll be passive aggressive against HR that's perfectly fine
take it to HR not directly, use the proper channels dipshit, it's an HR issue not a management issue until HR makes the managers get involved.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if this was an episode of the office and this thread is by Dwight

>>12961350
then take it to HR where it will be on her record long past the managers being there
if anything that's better for you because HR files are all new managers have to go off of

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:32:05 2019 No.12961368 >>12961329 >THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT LED TO THE GREAT SOUTHERN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OKAY??? >Like uh not slavery, and um definitely not slavery.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 06:33:29 2019 No.12961376 >>12961293 It's a good thread, dude. It's full of laughs.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:03:49 2019 No.12961444

>>12961269
There wouldn’t be legal fees for OP. If it’s a criminal charge, it’s the state that prosecutes. And again: value means fuck all for the law. In fact, if I give you $10 and ask you to buy something for me, and you take that $10 and spend it on something else, then the next day you buy my stuff with another $10 note, then that still comes under common law unlawful taking. It isn’t the value of the note - it’s the actual note itself. That note is my property. The VALUE of the note is distinct. This is why if you have $100 in a bank, you don’t have $100 in notes - you have $100 in a chose in action (i.e. the right to sue the bank for the VALUE of a $100). Two things: a physical thing, its value - not the same thing.

I agree with you, however, that going this route isn’t the most practical. We live in the real world and ultimately the goal is OP receives his goods back, or their replacement as soon as possible. Which is why I said right at the start he should text her in the first instance and outline the harm she’s caused him, then tell her to return the goods or an exact replacement. NOT their value (which is crucial). If she doesn’t, then he should raise a formal grievance via his company’s usual HR mechanisms. It might be cupcakes today and then someone’s purse or the company’s cash tomorrow. The only point beyond all this I wanted to make is that OP does have rights, as do we all, and the law protects those rights fiercely; so yes, he can also just go to the police if she refuses to return his goods and the company doesn’t help him, either. One other thing I’ll say, too, is people like her don’t operate in isolated incidents. She’s got a history of taking things that don’t belong to her because she feels she’s entitled to them. She can do that in all sorts of ways but that much is very clear to me.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:06:54 2019 No.12961453

>>12959906
>getting this caught up in office drama and being butthurt someone ate food you brought to a POTLUCK
this is woman-tier pettiness. act like a man for once in your life. youve provided no evidence of prior misconduct from this random lady. i bet youre the one that seethes over this woman and she doesnt even think of you at all

>>12960161
OP is clearly not a normal well adjusted person if theyre seething this much about someone they dont like eating his food at a pitch-in

>>12961265
far more likely that OP has warnings on file instead considering hes a huge fucking sperg

>>	None !2Code3TV3M Mon Sep 23 07:07:55 2019 No.12961455 >>12961453 kek

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:16:19 2019 No.12961482

>>12961444
>The only point beyond all this I wanted to make is that OP does have rights, as do we all, and the law protects those rights fiercely; so yes, he can also just go to the police if she refuses to return his goods and the company doesn’t help him, either

Maybe it's a cultural gap here--me being a burger and all--but if OP was to explain what transpired to our police after a voluntary company potluck/pitch-in, OP would quite literally be laughed at and told to "suck it up" or the police would claim that it is a corporate issue. I'm not a law graduate and I'm sure that you will argue until you're blue in the face about how the police themselves are ignorant of the law, but from a practicality standpoint, this seems quite ridiculous to the layperson. I initially wrote you off as a troll but now I see that you're quite knowledgeable. But a lot of what you suggested doesn't seem realistic to me which is why I thought that this was a big ruse. The police here in the states would not prosecute this under any circumstance.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:44:39 2019 No.12961545

>>12961482
No, that’s fine. I get that but I’m arguing from first principles and you’re arguing from practicalities. So, actually, this is one of those rare instances where we are both right. You’re right to say it’s probably just not worth the hassle, but my view is even though I agree with you on that, this is a slippery slope approach. People like her get away with shit like this because it’s all about petty actions. She relies on others saying “oh well, I mean they’re just $3 cupcakes”. This is really what I’m trying to point out - people like this are corrosive. They chip away at your rights bit by bit and make you feel foolish and ridiculous for standing up for them. OP bought those cupcakes in good faith to do something for other people. She has responded in the exact reverse - by taking his choices and his dignity along with his goods. This is really what fucking pisses me off.

And yes, you’re right on the police. They would likely think it a small issue. The same would be true here, too. But I can assure you they would speak to her and suggest to her to at least replace the goods. This is again all about practicalities and that’s fine - but the law is still the same and OP can actually just file a report the police have to act on. Whether they refer it on to the state prosecutor is a different matter but she’ll have to be spoken to, even informally. And that, as far as I’m concerned, will deliver to her all the message she needs. But, as you say and which I agree with, it’s better to a) tell her directly to replace or return, and, failing that b) take up a formal grievance procedure and let the company deal with her.

You should protect your rights; that’s all I’m saying. Don’t be fooled into thinking you’re being dumb or petty because that’s precisely what people like her rely on. They want you to think your rights are irrelevant, that you’re irrelevant. That’s what she’s actually stealing.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:48:48 2019 No.12961554

>>12961203
What is the meaningful difference between a fat cunt taking a tray of uneaten cupcakes versus a fat cunt taking the last cupcake, or the last few cupcakes, or ANY cupcake? What is the difference between that and someone that OP doesn't like taking any portion of any item that he contributed to a communal meal? Would be legally entitled to sue if he brought cheetos and this same fat cunt took one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:56:37 2019 No.12961574 >>12959906 >going to a potluck with store bought food kys you lazy faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:58:42 2019 No.12961579 >>12961554 All he wants is to hatefuck her and hatemarry her and raise hatechildren with her and hatedie in her arms at the end of a long life together. Stop being an asshole.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 07:59:24 2019 No.12961581

>>12961545
Alright, I understand your point of view now and I feel silly for shitposting/trolling for hours over it, but I can't shake the feeling that a lot of what you posted might be based on assumptions. We don't know that woman's history and we just have to assume on good faith that she has been psychologically tormenting OP; conversely, OP might have been misinterpreting benign behaviors as something malignant specifically directed toward OP. How do we know that she has a history of theft outside of this one dubious claim that OP has posted? It seems presumptuous to build an entire case upon a few neurotic posts without understanding the facts.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:06:22 2019 No.12961593

>>12961554
Well, it’s a good question. In theory, she could have just gone through a whole tray of cupcakes herself throughout the day. He’d have no grounds then because he’s set no specific condition she can’t have any. The condition he’s set (impliedly) is the goods are available in that place for any staff. The difference here, however, is that she’s removed them altogether. It’s also significant they were sealed when she did. So, she’s not only taken goods OP set out on the condition they were for everyone, she’s also deprived him of the opportunity to take them back for himself. Unless he’s made a specific agreement that anyone can take any amount of his goods regardless of any reasonable expectation he may have had otherwise (and such an agreement wouldn’t be enforceable anyway) then, because he retains title, he can withdraw or retain his goods as he sees fit. During the day while they’re being displayed, he can simply just take them back. That is basically what title is: freedom to do with your goods whatever you want. So, while they’re being displayed and she could simply just eat all of them if she wanted to, essentially she only could wish his permission - express or otherwise. If she removes his cupcakes altogether, then she’s nullified his permission and choices and so his title in the goods; i.e. stealing.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:06:25 2019 No.12961594
File: 11 KB, 229x181, 1561143304556.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>OP didn't even make the cupcakes
Just buy more you fucking Nancy. Judging by the fact that you came to your secret internet club to rant, you're not going to say shit to her about it anyway.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:15:37 2019 No.12961612

>>12961581
No, you’re right, I agree completely. I liked your posts. I know it’s a given but just to reiterate anyway, you should always challenge anything anyone says to you which is why I really like 4chan. Also, yeah, there may be some other history there, true. And yes, she may actually have acted innocently because perhaps OP gave her some indication she could take them he hasn’t told us about. All of that is entirely feasible. My position, though, is just to argue on the facts I have. If OP is bullshitting or failed to supply pertinent information then either he’ll not get his cupcakes back because he knows not to take it further, or he’ll get fucked in any grievance procedure that gets raised. It’ll all work out in the wash. But yeah, you’re right to challenge anything and I agree with you wholeheartedly that nothing said on the internet should ever be taken at face value. You argue well, it’s been a pleasure, seriously. All good lawyers know that it’s the opponent’s argument, not their own, that really matters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:15:47 2019 No.12961613 >>12961203 wtf is the egghead babbling on about mens rears lmfao what a faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:23:22 2019 No.12961624 >>12961612 Take care, Anon. It was also a pleasure to shitpost with you for the last several hours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:30:06 2019 No.12961639 >>12961624 You, too, my friend. You were right on the liability point, by the way. I meant to mention that in my last post. Conceded.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:30:41 2019 No.12961641
File: 21 KB, 657x527, 72647284-1A66-4740-B684-337647176B22.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12960966
>>12960985
>>12960991
>>12960998
>>12961041
>>12961339
Yall get it
It's personal because she's been mean to OP for a while and she knew they were his and she took them in a sneaky way and then tried to act innocent and unaware afterwards
Its greedy and cowardly and disrespectful

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:56:37 2019 No.12961692

>>12961593
>The condition he’s set (impliedly) is the goods are available in that place for any staff.
Does she not fall under "any staff"?

>The difference here, however, is that she’s removed them altogether.
So did everyone else that ate one.

>It’s also significant they were sealed when she did. So, she’s not only taken goods OP set out on the condition they were for everyone, she’s also deprived him of the opportunity to take them back for himself.
I maintain that OP didn't have title at the point where the fat bitch stole them.

>Unless he’s made a specific agreement that anyone can take any amount of his goods regardless of any reasonable expectation he may have had otherwise (and such an agreement wouldn’t be enforceable anyway) then, because he retains title, he can withdraw or retain his goods as he sees fit.
What "reasonable expectation"? He set them in a public place with the explicit intent that they be consumed by all and sundry. This was not some case of OP leaving something lying around, it was as a contribution to a community meal. To go back to that example of the collection plate, as soon as someone - anyone - got into one of the cupcakes and OP raised no objection that was exercise of grant on the whole lot of them. The fact that some were still packaged is incidental; OP would have as little claim to eleven as a dozen.

>During the day while they’re being displayed, he can simply just take them back. That is basically what title is: freedom to do with your goods whatever you want.
And I argue that pursuant to my above assertion, he forfeited his title.

>So, while they’re being displayed and she could simply just eat all of them if she wanted to, essentially she only could wish his permission - express or otherwise. If she removes his cupcakes altogether, then she’s nullified his permission and choices and so his title in the goods; i.e. stealing.
I can agree with the line of reasoning but I don't think that OP is the injured party here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:00:29 2019 No.12961696 >>12959930 >nigger >wants free shit imagine that

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:15:35 2019 No.12961735
File: 528 KB, 1600x1398, Deviled Eggs 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12959906

bring these to the next pot luck
I always do and I'm the hit of the party
and the guy who brings cupcakes from the grocery store is ridiculed by all my coworkers

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:20:25 2019 No.12961741 File: 104 KB, 572x621, 1565402446997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12961735 discusting

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:20:30 2019 No.12961742 File: 177 KB, 600x399, hoffman3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12960830 cupcakes were originally called "jewcakes" by Catholic clergy to entice young Jewish boys to have sex with them it's a fact

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:21:37 2019 No.12961745 File: 203 KB, 410x539, pardonme72200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >purchasing cupcakes for a potluck instead of making them yourself

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:24:11 2019 No.12961751

>>12961692
> Does she not fall under "any staff"?
Yes, but so do all the other staff. By taking all of them at once, she’s fundamentally altered the entire agreement. And there isn’t an agreement, anyway. Like I say, OP could remove them any time and nobody could have a claim against him. Also, it’s about realities: she can certainly keep going to the table throughout the day to take them eventually resulting in her eating them all, but she’d do so as an equal participant with everyone else who could do the same. So, by taking them all, she’s also gained an advantage for herself that is not part of the conditions.

> So did everyone else that ate one.
No, with respect, she’s taken them all leaving nothing. This is very different from taking one or even three at a time but leaving the remainder. Doing so puts you still within the conditions of them being placed there. OP didn’t bring them in for just her; they’re for others including her.

> I maintain that OP didn't have title at the point where the fat bitch stole them.
You’ll have to elucidate why then. The common law rule is title only passes when you’ve received good value, or you’ve made a gift. OP made a conditional donation which is not the same as a gift for reasons outlined above. The only exercise of grant in these circumstances is dependent on the conditions. It’s quasi-contractual but not quite, and probably closest to a form of unjust enrichment (my area of special interest).

... cont/

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:25:16 2019 No.12961754

>>12961692
Cont...
> What "reasonable expectation"? He set them in a public place with the explicit intent that they be consumed by all and sundry. This was not some case of OP leaving something lying around, it was as a contribution to a community meal. To go back to that example of the collection plate, as soon as someone - anyone - got into one of the cupcakes and OP raised no objection that was exercise of grant on the whole lot of them. The fact that some were still packaged is incidental; OP would have as little claim to eleven as a dozen.
The reasonable expectation that his conditions, even if implied, would be met. And yes, that’s right - he set them out to be eaten by the staff; reasonably taken to be others other than, but including, her. Also, exercise of grant is by the donee (person receiving), not the donor (OP). OP retains title in all, and relinquishes title on those consumed as per his conditions.

> And I argue that pursuant to my above assertion, he forfeited his title.
Ok, that’s fine, but you haven’t explained why. Title is a legal term that has specific boundaries. I understand it looks as though by leaving them out and essentially ‘taking his chances’ that he gave up any control over them but he didn’t; as I say, he could remove them any time and not a single person would have a claim against him. That’s what title is - that nobody has a greater claim in the goods than you do.

> I can agree with the line of reasoning but I don't think that OP is the injured party here.
That’s fine, but we can only go on the information we have. We can’t speculate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:36:06 2019 No.12961782 >>12959906 >But food for a potluck for people to eat >They eat it What the fuck man? The audacity of these people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:41:33 2019 No.12961800 >>12960069 >t. Confederate apologist The CSA were traitors who fought to keep people as property, nothing more nothing less.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:46:01 2019 No.12961816
File: 36 KB, 546x453, laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12961782

>OP complains to boss
>next day Memo issued "No more potlucks"
>"no more company parties"
>fucking autistic fuck fucks it up for everybody over some crummy day old Kroger cupcakes

quite funny when you think about it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:49:45 2019 No.12961825 >>12961800 >traitors Yeah okay Mr Acosta

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:52:18 2019 No.12961832

>>12959906
OP, you do realize this wanker didnt take food away from the potluck right? She took food nobody wanted after the potluck ended, or she at least thought nobody wanted.

You are dumb. She took food that she believed would of gone to waste if she didn't take them. If you really want the cupcakes back, message her for gods sake you fucking dumbass.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:07:47 2019 No.12961873

>>12961816
The worst part is that OP came to 4chan afterwards to seek validation for someone taking food from a potluck. I've been disappointed that everyone ate my food before but to come crying to a Mongolian cave paintings forum for support because you didn't have any Kroger cupcakes left over? Jesus Christ OP just end it all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:18:02 2019 No.12961905 >>12960078 No it really isnt since the north wasnt even going to abolish it at the start of the civil war. Crack a fuckin book moran

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:21:18 2019 No.12961910 >>12961800 Ah yeah that's the only reason families were slaughtering each other. The ignorance surrounding the civil war is astounding

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:26:22 2019 No.12961923

>>12961751
>Yes, but so do all the other staff. By taking all of them at once, she’s fundamentally altered the entire agreement.
Firstly, others also had access to the cupcakes. Secondly, she did not remove ALL of the cupcakes. The main reason that OP is butthurt is because she took the ones he liked, not because there are no cupcakes left. That hair can certainly be split but I feel that it is unnecessary in light of the other circumstances.

>And there isn’t an agreement, anyway.
Agreed.

>Like I say, OP could remove them any time and nobody could have a claim against him.
I disagree. OP clearly intended for those donated goods (the cupcakes) to be consumed and once that was confirmed his claim to them was no longer the most substantial. OP's caramel cupcakes are also not substantively distinct enough from his PSL cupcakes to warrant separate legal instances of donation; they are all "donated cupcakes".

>Also, it’s about realities: she can certainly keep going to the table throughout the day to take them eventually resulting in her eating them all, but she’d do so as an equal participant with everyone else who could do the same. So, by taking them all, she’s also gained an advantage for herself that is not part of the conditions.
I can see the point there, somewhat, but how is "equal participant" defined? If there were persons entitled to access to the cupcakes who did not have that chance because of her actions that's one thing, but from what we can tell that is not the case. They were sitting out all day (OP claims to have been the first in the office and about to leave work at the end of the day at the respective beginning and end of the story) and everyone had their fair shot at the cupcakes; to abscond with (if, in fact, she didn't just stand there stuffing her face, in which case new arguments are necessitated for both of us) more than one's "fair share" would seem to be a social faux pas, not a legal mishap.

cont.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:28:19 2019 No.12961929

>>12961754
>The reasonable expectation that his conditions, even if implied, would be met. And yes, that’s right - he set them out to be eaten by the staff; reasonably taken to be others other than, but including, her. Also, exercise of grant is by the donee (person receiving), not the donor (OP). OP retains title in all, and relinquishes title on those consumed as per his conditions.
My argument is that "those consumed" extends to all of the donated goods upon commencement of consumption.

>Ok, that’s fine, but you haven’t explained why. Title is a legal term that has specific boundaries. I understand it looks as though by leaving them out and essentially ‘taking his chances’ that he gave up any control over them but he didn’t; as I say, he could remove them any time and not a single person would have a claim against him. That’s what title is - that nobody has a greater claim in the goods than you do.
I would argue that whoever represents the interests of the workplace (ie the entity overseeing the potluck, to which OP donated all those cupcakes) would have a greater claim as soon as it was established by all concerned parties (namely OP and the entity in charge of the potluck) that the cupcakes were for general consumption and there were no conditions attached.

>That’s fine, but we can only go on the information we have. We can’t speculate.
I feel that I've done that. This is fun; I love playing with common law.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:32:29 2019 No.12961942 >>12959930 reparations for what? last I checked no one in the western world is buying or selling africans. dont get me wrong its STILL a trade in africa like is always has been long before and after the huwhite pipo came and left

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:45:15 2019 No.12961984 >>12959906 Putting up signs like that always made me steal more shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:48:49 2019 No.12961991 File: 1.70 MB, 1006x1097, 3evzypz0vtk31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] next time bring real food.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:53:47 2019 No.12962001 >>12961329 >That there were originally no plans to free slaves when the succession happened? Bleeding Kansas and the Missouri Compromise were LITERALLY evens and legislation regarding the legality of slavery you absolute fucking brainlet

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:54:41 2019 No.12962004 >>12960268 Youre on 4channel sweaty

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:55:43 2019 No.12962007 >>12960733 And the jews brought them over in ships

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:58:29 2019 No.12962013 File: 30 KB, 576x384, even_stevens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12962001 >LITERALLY evens she had nice breasts I'd give both those cupcakes and the cupcake between her legs reparations in a heartbeat of you catch my meaning

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:11:20 2019 No.12962037

>>12961923
> Firstly, others also had access to the cupcakes. Secondly, she did not remove ALL of the cupcakes. The main reason that OP is butthurt is because she took the ones he liked, not because there are no cupcakes left. That hair can certainly be split but I feel that it is unnecessary in light of the other circumstances.
But he still retains title to all of them. All of it. Each cupcake, the plastic wrapper, whatever: its his. He can choose to leave some, take others, gift them, anything he likes. His title, his to dispose of as he sees fit.

> I disagree. OP clearly intended for those donated goods (the cupcakes) to be consumed and once that was confirmed his claim to them was no longer the most substantial. OP's caramel cupcakes are also not substantively distinct enough from his PSL cupcakes to warrant separate legal instances of donation; they are all "donated cupcakes".
Ok, but there’s no quantification in possession. They are his or they are not. And the only way they can not be his is a) he sells them for value, or b) he gifts them. Those are the only ways you can legally relinquish title in the common law. So, nobody bought them, and he didn’t gift them. They were a conditional grant - similar to a trust or charity. Anyone taking one had to meet the conditions of grant. Donations are definitely not gifts. In order to actualise (exercise) the donation, you must meet the conditions.

Cont.../

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:12:26 2019 No.12962042

>>12961923
> I can see the point there, somewhat, but how is "equal participant" defined? If there were persons entitled to access to the cupcakes who did not have that chance because of her actions that's one thing, but from what we can tell that is not the case. They were sitting out all day (OP claims to have been the first in the office and about to leave work at the end of the day at the respective beginning and end of the story) and everyone had their fair shot at the cupcakes; to abscond with (if, in fact, she didn't just stand there stuffing her face, in which case new arguments are necessitated for both of us) more than one's "fair share" would seem to be a social faux pas, not a legal mishap.
Ok, but that’s just obvious on the facts. Just because we’re told they were left out all day, that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t have seen them and thought to come back later. Or came along after they were taken and never ever got the chance. Or that OP might have seen them unopened and decide to gift them to someone. Or take them home for himself. These are all conditions and opportunities and entitlements she’s interfered with. To be clear, though, yes, she could’ve simply stood there and eaten them all or just kept returning until she ate them all. That all meets the condition of grant - what doesn’t is removing them altogether and especially that doing so would deprive OP of his entitlements to them, including his choice to simply leave them there altogether.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:14:21 2019 No.12962049 File: 9 KB, 200x200, cupcake_candle_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12962037 sad, truly sad potlucks and cupcakes a deadly pairing

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:14:47 2019 No.12962051 >>12962013 Anon... she was under 18 for most of that show's run...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:15:29 2019 No.12962052 >>12961991 Jesus christ what a faggot.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:25:36 2019 No.12962090
File: 121 KB, 300x359, F5E5EC2F-8FE0-4634-B0BD-25E61E69B902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12961929
> My argument is that "those consumed" extends to all of the donated goods upon commencement of consumption.
Ok, but then you need to define ‘commencement of consumption’. Is that when they put it in their mouths? Just before? While it’s on the plate? When? I would say consumption is to be taken in the “plain and ordinary meaning of the word” (common law rule of interpretation) and occurred literally when they were eaten. At that point, title is extinguished, but not before.

> I would argue that whoever represents the interests of the workplace (ie the entity overseeing the potluck, to which OP donated all those cupcakes) would have a greater claim as soon as it was established by all concerned parties (namely OP and the entity in charge of the potluck) that the cupcakes were for general consumption and there were no conditions attached.
And again, only two ways they can have a greater claim. OP sold them, or gifted them. Seems to me you want to attempt an argument that it was a gift after all. If you can succeed with that, then this argument works. And you need authority (case law) if you want to do this. The common law is stitched together, never cut. There is no innovating. You must have precedent to say that this is a gift, not a conditional grant. But, you know, as the great Lord Coke (pic related) said “the common law is the law of common right or reason” so you can also persuade a judge to break with precedent if your argument is good enough.

> I feel that I've done that. This is fun; I love playing with common law.
Yeah, well you’re relentless enough. It’s a great quality for a lawyer. You should consider it :)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:28:54 2019 No.12962102 >>12960123 >just because I called it a potluck doesnt mean anything >it was actually a totally different scenario which recontextualizes the whole story You're retarded lad

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:37:32 2019 No.12962131 >>12959906 >How should I retaliate? Make cupcakes with laxatives and leave them out, like you did with the previous cupcakes

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:44:24 2019 No.12962148

>>12962037
>They were a conditional grant - similar to a trust or charity. Anyone taking one had to meet the conditions of grant. Donations are definitely not gifts.
I disagree with your assertion that a condition of the potluck is retention of title.

>Ok, but that’s just obvious on the facts. Just because we’re told they were left out all day, that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t have seen them and thought to come back later. Or came along after they were taken and never ever got the chance. Or that OP might have seen them unopened and decide to gift them to someone. Or take them home for himself.
That level of control over the product would seem to conflict with the essential nature of a potluck, wherein food is mutually contributed and freely self-distributed.

>To be clear, though, yes, she could’ve simply stood there and eaten them all or just kept returning until she ate them all. That all meets the condition of grant - what doesn’t is removing them altogether
Removal needs to be defined but I don't have the time, means or inclination to go pour through case law.

>and especially that doing so would deprive OP of his entitlements to them, including his choice to simply leave them there altogether.
So OP is entitled to tell everyone else to fuck off from his potluck contributions? That seems like a contradiction in terms, especially if it's a conditional grant.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:45:44 2019 No.12962152

>>12962090
>Ok, but then you need to define ‘commencement of consumption’. Is that when they put it in their mouths? Just before? While it’s on the plate? When? I would say consumption is to be taken in the “plain and ordinary meaning of the word” (common law rule of interpretation) and occurred literally when they were eaten. At that point, title is extinguished, but not before.
Yep.

>Seems to me you want to attempt an argument that it was a gift after all.
Yeah, pretty much. I just phrased it poorly.

>The common law is stitched together, never cut. There is no innovating. You must have precedent to say that this is a gift, not a conditional grant. But, you know, as the great Lord Coke (pic related) said “the common law is the law of common right or reason” so you can also persuade a judge to break with precedent if your argument is good enough.
And that's why it's so much fun.

>You should consider it :)
I did, but then I looked at law school and said "fuck that".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:53:09 2019 No.12962182 >brought cupcakes for your coworkers to eat >your coworker ate them Sounds about right. If you're anal retentive about only your favorite coworkers eating your garbage processed sugar I guess you can hand them out individually next time?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:22:47 2019 No.12962276

when you bring stuff into a potluck you shouldn't be expecting to bring anything back except for any container you brought food in. most people would rather everything get consumed than have to bring back leftovers anyway so this seems like a pretty autistic post

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:26:50 2019 No.12962290 /ck/ has some real weirdos posting here huh

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:28:05 2019 No.12962296 /ck/ - Tort Law and Food

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:48:02 2019 No.12962354 TIL i can eat an entire box of food if i just stand over it but if i take one back to my desk it is theft

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:22:44 2019 No.12962473 >>12962296 more like Torte Law

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:23:33 2019 No.12962477 >>12962296 You saw that reddit thread too huh

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:24:51 2019 No.12962486 >>12959930 More blacks are enslaving blacks at the moment we speak than Americans ever did. Nigger

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:29:41 2019 No.12962499 >>12959967 894,000 died due to black on white crime.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:30:20 2019 No.12962500 >>12961991 i am pretty sure they drank water and ate corn and limes he should of brought that

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:35:58 2019 No.12962517 >>12959930 based and blackpilled

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:44:28 2019 No.12962561 >>12960754 Slavery is pretty big in Africa even today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:44:59 2019 No.12962563 File: 44 KB, 1024x443, 1569194778075m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12960759 Get fucked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:47:37 2019 No.12962846 File: 22 KB, 282x400, James_Garner_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12962051 16 is the legal age in my state, Cupcake

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:32:08 2019 No.12963040 >>12960107 >he doesnt know read the entire post retard. she admits to it

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:37:28 2019 No.12963062

at my potlucks people take leftover food all the time (and we make it to GIVE not to be a fag and regift it to my shitty slut sister) and no one gives 2 shits because it'd rot in the fridge then get thrown out. you should've taken it first faggot. also fuck you for bringing shitty store bought cupcakes when you browse /ck/, fucking fast food poster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:46:14 2019 No.12963101 How did a thread about potluck cupcake drama blow up this hard? Can we reach the post limit? Has that ever happened before? Not counting deaths and special events.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:14:01 2019 No.12963193 >>12959935 This.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:34:55 2019 No.12963286 >>12963101 Everyone likes a good thread where OP gets BTFO for being an idiot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:36:45 2019 No.12963296 >>12963286 Well shit looks like this one is dying out, oh well it was a good run.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:56:31 2019 No.12963666

>>12963101
/ck/ incel autists doing what they do.
>woman takes food op brought to a potluck
>op incel considers it an extreme personal assault on him when in fact, the fatass was just on her moon cycle uncontrollably desiring sweets and never even thought about faggot op
>op obsession and rage ensues and whiteknighters come to his defense
You can see repeat this scenario repeated in various degrees in almost every thread on this board except the fast food threads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:21:09 2019 No.12963784 >>12963666 >you can see repeat this scenario uhhhmm... can you try that again in english, spud?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:53:01 2019 No.12963901 >>12962090 By the way, do you have any recommended resources for learning more in depth about common law? I already know some of the basics but something like a common law equivalent of Black's would be great.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:31:14 2019 No.12964062

>>12963901
Sorry on the delay. I think we can settle the key issue is whether the cupcakes are a gift or grant. Could go either way. You don’t need express agreements for one to exist. If something like this ever got to court (OP decided to sue in recovery) then judges undertake a process known as ‘construction’: they look at all the context and even things like text messages, previous similar events, and so on, and basically ‘build’ what the agreement was (construct). So, it kind of in that space you’d need to argue it’s a gift but you do need to follow the basic principles even if you don’t have precedent. But it’s always best to rely on previous case law so that’s important to bear in mind.

On books, ideally you want to source American property law generally, and the philosophy of property law specifically. Don’t worry, it’s way more interesting than just mortgages or whatever (which is also interesting anyway). I say this as someone who hated the idea of it but landing up wanting to do it as a career. I would also say reading Baker’s history of law (it’s all common law) is obligatory. The common law was basically built on property disputes so getting a grounding in its history is imperative. It’s a big book and he writes very densely (you’re smart enough) but it’ll give a good base understanding of how it developed into what it is now. Very much still the ancient principles at work. For instance, common law prop is very much rooted in customary law (like sharing food for instance), and there’s no dominion (absolute right) like in Roman law (which is shit; all civilian legal systems are shit).

So, I would start there: 1) Baker history of law, 2) any intro to American property law (must be US as you’ll have different key cases), and 3) philosophy of property law. I’ll try look around for you. A good indicator of quality is look at university presses from Yale etc. They’ll be expensive but they’ll be best academics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:43:43 2019 No.12964117

>>12964062
>Sorry on the delay. I think we can settle the key issue is whether the cupcakes are a gift or grant. Could go either way. You don’t need express agreements for one to exist. If something like this ever got to court (OP decided to sue in recovery) then judges undertake a process known as ‘construction’: they look at all the context and even things like text messages, previous similar events, and so on, and basically ‘build’ what the agreement was (construct). So, it kind of in that space you’d need to argue it’s a gift but you do need to follow the basic principles even if you don’t have precedent. But it’s always best to rely on previous case law so that’s important to bear in mind.
Yeah, I think the discussion has gone about as far as it can go without a research library. Thanks for you patience.

>On books, ideally you want to source American property law generally, and the philosophy of property law specifically. Don’t worry, it’s way more interesting than just mortgages or whatever (which is also interesting anyway). I say this as someone who hated the idea of it but landing up wanting to do it as a career. I would also say reading Baker’s history of law (it’s all common law) is obligatory. The common law was basically built on property disputes so getting a grounding in its history is imperative. It’s a big book and he writes very densely (you’re smart enough) but it’ll give a good base understanding of how it developed into what it is now. Very much still the ancient principles at work.
Thanks.

> all civilian legal systems are shit
B&R.

>So, I would start there: 1) Baker history of law, 2) any intro to American property law (must be US as you’ll have different key cases), and 3) philosophy of property law. I’ll try look around for you. A good indicator of quality is look at university presses from Yale etc. They’ll be expensive but they’ll be best academics.
God bless libgen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:14:15 2019 No.12964508 >>12960747 >white man dindu nuffin, it was da jooooos holy fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:16:29 2019 No.12964521 >>12960875 don't try and understand the /pol/ brain

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:22:32 2019 No.12964537 >>12964508 Yea man I know! It's crazy, but true. Weird how they don't teach that part in school. I guess history is "anti-Semitic" now, eh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:24:22 2019 No.12964547 >>12964508 >jooooos Why spell it like that? It's "Jews" or "Juden".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:26:21 2019 No.12964556 >>12964547 >>12964537 go back

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:27:18 2019 No.12964560 >>12964521 Shouldn't you want to understand every point of view to make sense of an issue the best you can? Ignoring facts can lead to some pretty damaging trends like science or history denial...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:28:33 2019 No.12964567 >>12964556 I'll go back to /pol/ when you go back to R_eddit. Deal?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:53:17 2019 No.12964681 >>12959906 You fucking moron the whole point of a potluck is to eat other people's food. kys

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:10:41 2019 No.12964757

>>12964681
>not distinguishing between "eating someone elses food meant for everyone" and taking home an entire unopened tray of food to eat at your leisure.
If its eaten at work fine, but taking an unopened tray of food home to eat later is literally theft. Read the thread next time as well before posting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:15:58 2019 No.12964784 >>12964560 their point of view is just white supremacism, there isn't much more to understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:18:42 2019 No.12964794 >>12964784 >their point of view is just white supremacism If all evidence and facts point to that being the solution, perhaps it might be time to entertain that idea and see if it makes the world a better place. .

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:19:22 2019 No.12964799 >>12964784 either that or they could be muslims, for all the anti jew stuff i mean. jews make muslims seethe like nothing else in the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:21:41 2019 No.12964812 >>12964784 >>12964799 So anyone who calls out Jews for their wrongdoing, historical or modern, is a white supremacist? That's an interesting perspective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:22:43 2019 No.12964817 >>12964794 >perhaps it might be time to entertain that idea and see if it makes the world a better place This. A rising tide raises all ships.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:25:50 2019 No.12964822 >>12964812 anyone who starts talking about how jews were responsible for american slavery and whites are innocent and are actually the heroes is yes. but nice strawman

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:32:42 2019 No.12964844

>>12964822
>how jews were responsible for american slavery
They literally owned and operated the transatlantic slave trade. This is not an opinion, it is a documented fact. Are whites at fault as well? Sure, they brought the slaves. So did American Indians, Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, and every country in South America. Africans are also at fault since they supplied the Jews with captured Africans to ship around the world. So everyone is at fault to different degrees.

That doesn't change the fact that the people who operated the slave trade were Jewish.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:43:19 2019 No.12964880

>>12964844
>they literally owned the transatlantic slave trade
patently false, some were involved sure, but to say they "owned the slave trade" or they were the reason behind it is just so intellectually dishonest. stop getting your information from /pol/ and white supremacist sites.
actually try reading some scholarly works on the subject for once in your life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:45:45 2019 No.12964894 >>12964880 >actually try reading some scholarly works on the subject for once in your life A suggestion I will redirect back at you my Jewish friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:46:26 2019 No.12964900 >>12964894 >if you don't agree with my ridiculous views you must be jewish yep, it's /pol/

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:47:44 2019 No.12964906

>>12960814
The Jews sold the slaves. They also were the largest perpetrators of human trafficking during the sugar boom in South America, truly the shittiest of slave work in a place that didn't even end up as good as the US. The sugar industry still utilizes slavery. It's not "redundant" to describe history accurately, Jewnon.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:53:55 2019 No.12964936

>>12964880
You have to understand that a group of Portuguese Jewish financiers master minded and financed the entire idea of sending specialized ships to the West coast of Africa to meet with war lords they had agreements with and pick up slaves captured during tribal warfare. The entire idea of taking slaves from one area and dispersing them around the world was literally a Jewish invention. Historically speaking, slavery had always occurred within a racial group (white on white, black on black, Asian on Asian, etc). Jews literally revolutionized the business of slavery by taking people en masse from Africa instead. The modern concept of slavery we know today was literally invented by Jews.

Is none of this getting through to you? What did you think? That whites went to Africa with big nets and captured an African at a time before bringing them back to America? lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:54:58 2019 No.12964941 >>12964900 You are either Jewish or a friend of Jews. You wouldn't defend them so vehemently otherwise.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:57:24 2019 No.12964957

>>12964936
I'm not even gonna argue with this one because the whole thing is just make believe.
Read a book on the subject, and not one endorsed by david duke.
I know you won't do this though, because you don't really care about the truth, you just want to built a fantasy world for yourself that conforms with all your views.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:59:03 2019 No.12964969 >>12964941 spoken like a true sociopath

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 23:00:26 2019 No.12964977

>>12964957
>I'm not even gonna argue with this one because the whole thing is just make believe.
Yea, I've experienced that people who have no argument to make tend to take this route. Otherwise they would address each point I made with a specific and sourced rebuttal.

You have no rebuttal by the way because I'm historically accurate, and your argument is based on "feelings".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 23:04:46 2019 No.12964998 >>12964977 no, your argument is make believe, there's nothing to argue against. I'm not gonna argue about fairy tales, as much as you'd like me to.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 23:06:22 2019 No.12965003

>>12964977
>your argument is based on "feelings"
He's actually refrained from making any argument at all except "Jews have never done anything wrong, goy!". Classic Jewish tactic. If you never address the argument, you can claim to win the argument by default (without making an argument all).

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]