Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 193 of 213 FirstFirst ... 93143183189190191192193194195196197203 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,930 of 2122

Thread: Rape - how important is your underwear

  1. #1921
    Politics.ie Member The OD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Axis Mundi
    Posts
    11,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise-up View Post
    Adolescence is a precarious time; where there is a natural need for exploration, but a susceptibility to risk. I am not convinced (very drunk) adolescents are all that good at taking responsibility for their 'decisions' and 'consenting'. That is part of their learning curve. Understandibly, many 'adults' want to sweep in, to 'take the pain away' - on their terms.
    Returning to the female Defence Barrister - was she cynically 'reading the Irish jury's preferences', and trying to get a guilty man off punishment for a genuine rape. ?
    And was she cynically trying to get away with a (slut-shame) rhetorical trick, as a woman ?
    Not being party to all the trial evidence I really couldn't say, however, I would be quite suprised to find that the jury came to their decision based on her referencing the girls underwear. It would appear that he was found innocent of the charge based on other, presumably more pertinent evidence?
    Let's all raise a glass of frog milk to the ancient festival of Fargaltide!

  2. #1922
    Politics.ie Member Clanrickard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last outpost of freedom
    Posts
    32,053
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise-up View Post
    Clanrickard, I am all for people trying to improve our systems and application of justice. For example, in this particular rape case, there should have been more of an investigation into all the procedural (errors) which led to it being delayed or prolonged over 3 or 4 years. This is a ridiculous torture of both 'participants'. And a crime against natural justice. 'boring' Stuff like this should be highlighted.
    And if we are going to rely on jury verdicts; it is only natural, that as a society we should try to encourage people who go on juries are aware of human nature, rhetorical tricks, their own pre-conceptions and how to weigh up arguments.
    In addition; I am beginning to lose faith in mainstream media coverage of such matters and think they should be banned from coverage. As a failing business model; they are increasingly being forced to play to a sensationalist, shock-horror agenda. As for desperate emily's trying to bring trade to pie.....
    Juries do get some instruction. I am wary of juries being coached especially by man hating feminists and their beta male hangers on. The constant drum beat about societal prejudices may swing the pendulum the other way. By and large the evidence suggests juries do their job in a conscientious manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by The OD View Post
    Not being party to all the trial evidence I really couldn't say, however, I would be quite suprised to find that the jury came to their decision based on her referencing the girls underwear. It would appear that he was found innocent of the charge based on other, presumably more pertinent evidence?
    Correct. There were a host of other factors involved but that doesn't suit the feminazi narrative.

  3. #1923
    Politics.ie Member Pabilito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,502
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    If they said they hadn't done so, then I may well do.

    And so what? As I said, I'm not commenting on a post that needs to be removed because it breaks the rules, merely commenting on the blatant untruth posted by Biffo about his own post.

    In his defence (sort of) I suspect it's such a habit that he's barely aware of doing it and therefore wasn't deliberately lying.
    Yes but given that your commentary is very biased then by extension, so too is your moderation. In your own words: I suspect it's such a habit that you’re barely aware of doing it..

  4. #1924
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    355
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    Juries do get some instruction. I am wary of juries being coached especially by man hating feminists and their beta male hangers on. The constant drum beat about societal prejudices may swing the pendulum the other way. By and large the evidence suggests juries do their job in a conscientious manner.



    Correct. There were a host of other factors involved but that doesn't suit the feminazi narrative.
    I'm not as confident as you in jury quality; nor indeed in the fairness and workings of the justice system, particularly for someone who is not in the 'in crowd'.
    Where did you get more detail on this particular case about the other factors - through the newspapers ?

  5. #1925
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,269
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    2W + 1M = 2
    and
    2M + 1W = 1

    Calculate the value of W and M.

    thanks very much there mate for makin me see mister dunne agin after years tryin to forget the ************************!!!!
    casey was right!!!!

  6. #1926
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    LOL.
    LOL.


    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    FYP.

    Another poster who mistakes their opinion for objective fact.
    My perception that you're displaying bias isn't arbitrary or capricious, it's based on how you react to posts based more on the poster than the content.

    This thread has many abusive posts with members being labelled gobshytes, misogynists, scumbags, woman-haters, etc all of which attracted no adverse comment from you. All those posts are made by people who agree with your position on this case.

    In less than an hour after I post a perfectly reasonable and respectful reply to one of those abusive posters you weigh in with sharp attack on me.

    How can that be explained without mentioning bias?

  7. #1927
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    If they said they hadn't done so, then I may well do.

    And so what? As I said, I'm not commenting on a post that needs to be removed because it breaks the rules, merely commenting on the blatant untruth posted by Biffo about his own post.

    In his defence (sort of) I suspect it's such a habit that he's barely aware of doing it and therefore wasn't deliberately lying.
    I posted no untruth.

  8. #1928
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The OD View Post
    'Slut shaming' is a term that has existed for some time.

    There is even a wikipedia entry for it and there are definitions to be found all over the internet. Google (in this instance at least) can be your friend if you let it:



    It's not a new concept but the terminology is relatively recent. I bolded the part above as it is accurate. During the Belfast Rugby trial much was made of the woman's actions that night, however, there was little to no attention given to the actions of the men, men who engaged in sex with other men with the woman in question. I give this example, not to pick over the case but to highlight the differing standards that appear to be applied.

    2 (or 3) women having sex with 1 man = 3 sluts.

    2 (or 3) having sex with 1 woman = 1 slut.

    [Defamatory comment removed]

    Other examples are women carrying condoms in their handbag, style of dress and having multiple partners, all things that carry no 'moral' baggage when done so by a man.
    But that's utterly absurd!

    The entire trial was about the actions of the men. They were named and humiliated in public, they had to endure something like two years of investigation and 8 weeks of a trial that could have seen them locked up for years with their reputations in tatters.

    Their accuser by contrast has her anonymity protected for life and she had the full force of the state supporting her efforts to destroy the defendants. Of course the defendants challenged her various versions of the events that night and ultimately they were vindicated.

  9. #1929
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amsterdemmetje View Post
    thats a good one some of the most so called educated people ive met in my life are lacking many skills humility being the most common as can be seen by your own obnoxious behaviour in that post. Education has feck all to do with how i grasp or understand the reasoning behind mentioning of the girls underwear ,common sense is always a great asset severely lacking in those who believe themselves superior than others.
    You have shown your true colors there biffo.
    ...

    Qed

  10. #1930
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The OD View Post
    Not being party to all the trial evidence I really couldn't say, however, I would be quite suprised to find that the jury came to their decision based on her referencing the girls underwear. It would appear that he was found innocent of the charge based on other, presumably more pertinent evidence?
    It's telling that nowhere in the media is there a full account of the case with details of the evidence that supported the innocence of the accused.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •