Rape - how important is your underwear

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
I trust you have some independent evidence to back up that that story which slanders a dead person?..

It sounds to me more like a story fabricated by a person in order to explain why their children don’t talk to them and which obviously can’t be contested by the other deceased parent.

I seriously doubt anyone, male or female would place such an awful burden on their children particularly on their deathbed… most parents want what’s best for their children and for them to be happy.. instructing them not to talk to the other parent regardless of circumstances is very unnatural and damaging... why would a parent go out of their way to leave such a vindictive legacy to their children.?. divorcing parents love their children every bit as much or even more than other parents do.
You doubt it, you seriously doubt it, but the act of doubting is subjective. Its an assessment based on your observations of the world so far. I doubted it could happen because my world did not contain such behavior. But my world was proved too limited in scope, this is what happened. I am not judging whether he or she had a genuine grievance prior to his death, he may have had, but to try to extend it beyond his death and to actually succeed proved shocking for me. I was shocked and still am.

Your intellectual assessment capabilities limits do not change the impact one iota
 


Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,840
You've said a lot more than that about your ex. You've been at her for years on here. Painting yourself as the saint and your ex wife as the opposite. So bad I hope your children never read what you've written.
Seems a man asserting his rights offends you.. maybe you’re more comfortable back in your feminist echo chamber. Anyway, I’m sure your husband and kids have the measure of you and know what not to say.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,840
You doubt it, you seriously doubt it, but the act of doubting is subjective. Its an assessment based on your observations of the world so far. I doubted it could happen because my world did not contain such behavior. But my world was proved too limited in scope, this is what happened. I am not judging whether he or she had a genuine grievance prior to his death, he may have had, but to try to extend it beyond his death and to actually succeed proved shocking for me. I was shocked and still am.

Your intellectual assessment capabilities limits do not change the impact one iota
So you're shocked about an anecdotal story that probably never occurred in reality...
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
So you're shocked about an anecdotal story that probably never occurred in reality...
Anything I post here is true. Only true events stick in my memory. I knew the parties. I still observe them. I have no problem with the difficult issue of the kids in marital break up. Its hard and I sympathize with both sides but to attempt to carry the effects beyond death and for the children to continue it is truly shocking in my view.
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,840
Anything I post here is true. Only true events stick in my memory. I knew the parties. I still observe them. I have no problem with the difficult issue of the kids in marital break up. Its hard and I sympathize with both sides but to attempt to carry the effects beyond death and for the children to continue it is truly shocking in my view.
How do you know it’s true.. were you actually present in the room when the man died.. did you hear what he supposedly said to his children with your own ears?.. if not it's all just hearsay.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
57,757
I think the jury should be allowed to hear all plausible arguments that could indicate consent, even consent signalled by non verbal cues.
 

Kilbarry

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,237

".......Recently a succession of men has been acquitted by the courts and a judge with 40 years’ experience of legal practice wrote to the CPS to say that a pattern has emerged whereby the parties involved know each other, one or both has been drinking or using drugs and each gives a plausible account as to what happened.
There is absolutely no independent evidence so no jury can convict given the requirement of “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

"The irate judge ends his missive by suggesting that the CPS must have a different interpretation of cases which stands “a realistic prospect of conviction” from everybody else.

Instead of explaining why such cases are deemed likely to be successful, Ms Saunders calls such views “victim-blaming” and says they have allowed predators to offend with impunity in the past" [my emphasis]

That kind of thinking helps to explain the lunatic trial of Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and the others. It wasn't even one person's word against another but one person's word against FOUR - plus the other lady at the party who testified for the defense that she assumed she witnessed a consensual threesome. How could the prosecution have expected to get a conviction? Perhaps because the authorities automatically classify accusers as "victims" and don't even consider the possibility that they may be lying!
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
16,710
The Indo has made an unreserved apology for publishing material which led to the collapse of a trial in this case. It also paid the cost of the collapsed trial.


It's to be hoped that the fine to be announced tomorrow will be very substantial.

Certain posters here and elsewhere who are wont to make very prejudicial posts against men accused of sex offences in the course of their trial would do well to heed this case.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
57,757

".......Recently a succession of men has been acquitted by the courts and a judge with 40 years’ experience of legal practice wrote to the CPS to say that a pattern has emerged whereby the parties involved know each other, one or both has been drinking or using drugs and each gives a plausible account as to what happened.
There is absolutely no independent evidence so no jury can convict given the requirement of “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

"The irate judge ends his missive by suggesting that the CPS must have a different interpretation of cases which stands “a realistic prospect of conviction” from everybody else.


Instead of explaining why such cases are deemed likely to be successful, Ms Saunders calls such views “victim-blaming” and says they have allowed predators to offend with impunity in the past" [my emphasis]

That kind of thinking helps to explain the lunatic trial of Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and the others. It wasn't even one person's word against another but one person's word against FOUR - plus the other lady at the party who testified for the defense that she assumed she witnessed a consensual threesome. How could the prosecution have expected to get a conviction? Perhaps because the authorities automatically classify accusers as "victims" and don't even consider the possibility that they may be lying!
I do think its interesting that these cases sometimes happen where these women are going home with these men, then going into their bedrooms, and sometimes even admitting they are getting into bed with them consensually, yet then expect us to believe they were not consenting to nature taking its course. I accept there have been some cases where there were convictions of such men in these situations. But I have to admit being cynical in some such cases. And the relatively low rate of such complaints resulting in trials, and then only half leading to convictions suggests my cynicism is widely shared.

Feminists have argued that there is a "low rate of convictions" and that the solution is training for jurors. I am not closing the door on such training, provided it isn't of the "all men are guilty" type. There may be some benefit to arriving at a fair verdict in understanding questions such as why some accusers wait a long time, or dispelling myths that being scantily-clad means a woman is "asking for it". But I think Irish juries are by and large fair, and that by and large, they reach the correct verdict in such cases.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,879
I do think its interesting that these cases sometimes happen where these women are going home with these men, then going into their bedrooms, and sometimes even admitting they are getting into bed with them consensually, yet then expect us to believe they were not consenting to nature taking its course. I accept there have been some cases where there were convictions of such men in these situations. But I have to admit being cynical in some such cases. And the relatively low rate of such complaints resulting in trials, and then only half leading to convictions suggests my cynicism is widely shared.

Feminists have argued that there is a "low rate of convictions" and that the solution is training for jurors. I am not closing the door on such training, provided it isn't of the "all men are guilty" type. There may be some benefit to arriving at a fair verdict in understanding questions such as why some accusers wait a long time, or dispelling myths that being scantily-clad means a woman is "asking for it". But I think Irish juries are by and large fair, and that by and large, they reach the correct verdict in such cases.
Because men cannot help themselves. Once the dick is hard it must find its hole. Does not matter if a woman says, stop this is hurting, the mighty dick is all powerful.

The man will often say, I could not help it, my dick made me do it. I wrestled with it, but it overpowered me.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
57,757
Because men cannot help themselves. Once the dick is hard it must find its hole. Does not matter if a woman says, stop this is hurting, the mighty dick is all powerful.

The man will often say, I could not help it, my dick made me do it. I wrestled with it, but it overpowered me.
Well I am not straight man so I can't speak for them, but I just don't think that is the case.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
16,710
No that is not what I mean! What I mean is I don't think most men would say stuff like that or that that excuse would be a valid one. You misintepreted what I meant. An actual rapist might make that excuse though. My point is that its an excuse not a legitimate reason.
You're trying to have a sensible discussion with someone who claims to be a geneticist despite his being only semi-literate and saying that he lives upstairs from a 'dolie'.

How do you see that developing?
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
3,879
No that is not what I mean! What I mean is I don't think most men would say stuff like that or that that excuse would be a valid one. You misintepreted what I meant. An actual rapist might make that excuse though. My point is that its an excuse not a legitimate reason.
What the **** would you know about "most men"?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top