(January 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I suppose it is, if the truth does doesn't matter to you.

No, please don't lay that on me. What you're proposing is exactly what I've warned against throughout; trial by journalism.

Who gets to decide what the truth is? The journo? The editor? The person who sold the story instead of reporting it to the authorities? What about the accused? What if that was you? Wouldn't you want your hour in court to put your side of the events?

This stuff isn't merely a drama, for salacious public entertainment or outrage. People, actual real people, can get hurt by it. And it's too late to make amends in the event that a mistake is shown to have happened, because the damage is done.

Actually, this kind of thing might even prevent the case going to trial at all, if the public is so whipped up into a froth that finding an unbiased jury becomes impossible. And let's say this guy managed to overturn the accusations. I can see the comments here: "he only got off - so to speak - because of who is / because he's a man / because he's got money" etc etc.

Bottom line is, I'm all for the truth, it matters a great deal. But the truth is not the province of one person, nor whomever shouts the loudest.

This is why I don't do gossip.

How does everyone shutting up about it fix anything? The guy is a public figure putting out a public image of being friendly to the #metoo cause, yet he behaves in a way that everyone here seemingly agrees is creepy if not rapey.

There's a fine line between famous and infamous, and I suspect it lies in the region where one's behavior is scrutinized precisely because you're a public figure.

I don't think anyone here thinks any sort of trial is likely, but I do think that everyone here has a right to their opinion -- and that includes the woman who was harangued.

We're having a discussion. No one here seems to be saying "I've got the truth." All of us seem to agree on the basics.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Joods Wrote: Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.

(January 18, 2018 at 8:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Joods Wrote: Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.

As I explained already but apparently need to say again:

That's is not AT ALL what I meant by my comment. It was the other way around more than anything - if AZIZ had more respect for her as a human being and more respect for sexual morality he wouldn't have rushed through dinner so he could take her home and start pressuring her to have sex with him. I had HIM in mind when I wrote that, not her.

I would appreciate not having words put in my fucking mouth. Thanks.

---

.
I'll repost it again and hopefully people will stop accusing me of stupid bullshit:

(January 17, 2018 at 2:16 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Uh my sexual morality suggestion was aimed much more towards Aziz than it was towards Grace. He's the one who was being disrespecteful of her and pressuring her. He's the one who wanted to have a casual hook up/one night stand, not her.

Don't see how my post about promoting sex as a language of self giving love and commitment (oh the horror) in any way blames the person who did not want to have casual sex. That suggestion was much more for him.

Be quiet, undesirable! Your words have no power here!

(January 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 8:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.

As I explained already but apparently need to say again:

That's is not AT ALL what I meant by my comment. It was the other way around more than anything - if AZIZ had more respect for her as a human being and more respect for sexual morality he wouldn't have rushed through dinner so he could take her home and start pressuring her to have sex with him. I had HIM in mind when I wrote that, not her.

I would appreciate not having words put in my fucking mouth. Thanks.

---

.
I'll repost it again and hopefully people will stop accusing me of stupid bullshit:

(January 17, 2018 at 2:16 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Uh my sexual morality suggestion was aimed much more towards Aziz than it was towards Grace. He's the one who was being disrespecteful of her and pressuring her. He's the one who wanted to have a casual hook up/one night stand, not her.

Don't see how my post about promoting sex as a language of self giving love and commitment (oh the horror) in any way blames the person who did not want to have casual sex. That suggestion was much more for him.

Some people can’t see anything past the word, ‘Catholic’.  Wait, I think there’s a word for that...

(January 18, 2018 at 8:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm)Cyberman Wrote: No, please don't lay that on me. What you're proposing is exactly what I've warned against throughout; trial by journalism.

Who gets to decide what the truth is? The journo? The editor? The person who sold the story instead of reporting it to the authorities? What about the accused? What if that was you? Wouldn't you want your hour in court to put your side of the events?

This stuff isn't merely a drama, for salacious public entertainment or outrage. People, actual real people, can get hurt by it. And it's too late to make amends in the event that a mistake is shown to have happened, because the damage is done.

Actually, this kind of thing might even prevent the case going to trial at all, if the public is so whipped up into a froth that finding an unbiased jury becomes impossible. And let's say this guy managed to overturn the accusations. I can see the comments here: "he only got off - so to speak - because of who is / because he's a man / because he's got money" etc etc.

Bottom line is, I'm all for the truth, it matters a great deal. But the truth is not the province of one person, nor whomever shouts the loudest.

This is why I don't do gossip.

How does everyone shutting up about it fix anything? The guy is a public figure putting out a public image of being friendly to the #metoo cause, yet he behaves in a way that everyone here seemingly agrees is creepy if not rapey.

There's a fine line between famous and infamous, and I suspect it lies in the region where one's behavior is scrutinized precisely because you're a public figure.

I don't think anyone here thinks any sort of trial is likely, but I do think that everyone here has a right to their opinion -- and that includes the woman who was harangued.

We're having a discussion. No one here seems to be saying "I've got the truth." All of us seem to agree on the basics.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Joods Wrote: Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.

Her grief? Where does she express anything about personal experiences in her first post? In a later post, she clearly said she's never had this sort of thing happen but she could still sympathize. She also never mentioned anything about her religious beliefs in that first post.

Nice strawmanning and completely missing the point.

(January 18, 2018 at 9:51 pm)Joods Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 8:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How does everyone shutting up about it fix anything? The guy is a public figure putting out a public image of being friendly to the #metoo cause, yet he behaves in a way that everyone here seemingly agrees is creepy if not rapey.

There's a fine line between famous and infamous, and I suspect it lies in the region where one's behavior is scrutinized precisely because you're a public figure.

I don't think anyone here thinks any sort of trial is likely, but I do think that everyone here has a right to their opinion -- and that includes the woman who was harangued.

We're having a discussion. No one here seems to be saying "I've got the truth." All of us seem to agree on the basics.

---

This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.

Her grief? Where does she express anything about personal experiences in her first post? In a later post, she clearly said she's never had this sort of thing happen but she could still sympathize. She also never mentioned anything about her religious beliefs in that first post.

Nice strawmanning and completely missing the point.

He was referring to Grace's grief. He's claiming my comment about sexual morality was aimed at her, and that my message was "If Grace had followed my beliefs she wouldn't have been in that situation." He's claiming I'm using Grace's grief to promote Catholicism.

Couldn't be further from the truth of course, but it's always nice to have words shoved into my mouth and twisted to mean something undesirable.

(January 18, 2018 at 9:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 9:51 pm)Joods Wrote: Her grief?  Where does she express anything about personal experiences in her first post? In a later post, she clearly said she's never had this sort of thing happen but she could still sympathize. She also never mentioned anything about her religious beliefs in that first post.  

Nice strawmanning and completely missing the point.

He was referring to Grace's grief. He's claiming my comment about sexual morality was aimed at her, and that my message was "If Grace had followed my beliefs she wouldn't have been in that situation." He's claiming I'm using Grace's grief to promote Catholicism.

Couldn't be further from the truth of course, but it's always nice to have words shoved into my mouth and twisted to mean something undesirable.

Yeah, I don't even see where you ever indicated anything of the sort. Twisting indeed.

Yeah, also, the idea of asking permission every step of the way doesn't mean all relationships have to follow it. It means consent CAN go from just a "yes" in the beginning to a "yes" every step of the way. Depends on the girl though, doesn't it? If she's cool with it then there's no problem is there? But if she isn't you can't go "buh janice didn't want me to do that, so I guess Imma rape you teeheehee". Context, numbnuts, depends on the girl, if a girl you're dating wants you to ask every step of the way then you absolutely have to, no "buh buh too much work" or "buh buh kills the mood". Stfu and do it, or foff

(January 18, 2018 at 10:50 pm)Joods Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 9:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: He was referring to Grace's grief. He's claiming my comment about sexual morality was aimed at her, and that my message was "If Grace had followed my beliefs she wouldn't have been in that situation." He's claiming I'm using Grace's grief to promote Catholicism.

Couldn't be further from the truth of course, but it's always nice to have words shoved into my mouth and twisted to mean something undesirable.

Yeah, I don't even see where you ever indicated anything of the sort. Twisting indeed.

Nope, I said the opposite.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 10:50 pm)pool the matey Wrote: Yeah, also, the idea of asking permission every step of the way doesn't mean all relationships have to follow it. It means consent CAN go from just a "yes" in the beginning to a "yes" every step of the way. Depends on the girl though, doesn't it? If she's cool with it then there's no problem is there? But if she isn't you can't go "buh janice didn't want me to do that, so I guess Imma rape you teeheehee". Context, numbnuts, depends on the girl, if a girl you're dating wants you to ask every step of the way then you absolutely have to, no "buh buh too much work" or "buh buh kills the mood". Stfu and do it, or foff

If a girl wants you to verbally ask for her consent every step of the way during a sexual encounter, then of course you should. As far as I'm aware though, the vast majority of girls would probably be very much put off by that in the moment.

I know, it's super stupid but if that's what a girl wants then that's what needs to be done. Instead of protecting "the vast majority" this will protect "all". It's simple, if you don't need to be asked every step of the way, fine, if you do need to be asked every step of the way that's cool too. It's about giving more power to women than men...over their own bodies. Not unreasonable at all.