Body & Soul0 min ago
Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison
And the movement has momentum!
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TheDevil. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Theland - // Andy - Then on a scale of 1 to 10, just how stupid do you think I am?
(Stupidity increasing with higher number?) //
I have never inferred, much less stated that I think you are stupid, so I am sure you will understand when I decline to stroll down this particular conversational cul-de-sac with you.
(Stupidity increasing with higher number?) //
I have never inferred, much less stated that I think you are stupid, so I am sure you will understand when I decline to stroll down this particular conversational cul-de-sac with you.
Do you know the name of the lady you were referring to Khandro?
Weinstein was acquitted of the most serious charges against him.
Perhaps her's was one of the claims dismissed by the jury.
You see, like every other normal court in the western world, they took some of the women's behaviour into account and, to put it bluntly, didn't believe them.
Weinstein was acquitted of the most serious charges against him.
Perhaps her's was one of the claims dismissed by the jury.
You see, like every other normal court in the western world, they took some of the women's behaviour into account and, to put it bluntly, didn't believe them.
Spicerack - // You see, like every other normal court in the western world, they took some of the women's behaviour into account and, to put it bluntly, didn't believe them. //
It is clear from this post that you were actually serious in your question to me about 'women's behaviour'.
Your rudeness notwithstanding - I am delighted to offer you my view on this subject.
If by the term 'woman's behaviour' you are inferring that any woman contributes in any way whatsoever to being assaulted to any degree by means of her dress, speech, attitude, behaviour, demeanour, or indeed anything whatsoever, then I would regard that view as beneath contempt, and a slight towards any victim of such a vile crime.
For me a woman can walk stark naked into a man's hotel room and still be able to refuse any sexual advances with a simple 'No', rather than to have him assume that merely by her presence, she is tacitly conveying a willingness towards sexual contact, and that her apparent 'change of mind' entitles him to take what he wants by physical force.
If your view is different to that, I would be intrigued to read it, and if possible, your reasons for holding it.
It is clear from this post that you were actually serious in your question to me about 'women's behaviour'.
Your rudeness notwithstanding - I am delighted to offer you my view on this subject.
If by the term 'woman's behaviour' you are inferring that any woman contributes in any way whatsoever to being assaulted to any degree by means of her dress, speech, attitude, behaviour, demeanour, or indeed anything whatsoever, then I would regard that view as beneath contempt, and a slight towards any victim of such a vile crime.
For me a woman can walk stark naked into a man's hotel room and still be able to refuse any sexual advances with a simple 'No', rather than to have him assume that merely by her presence, she is tacitly conveying a willingness towards sexual contact, and that her apparent 'change of mind' entitles him to take what he wants by physical force.
If your view is different to that, I would be intrigued to read it, and if possible, your reasons for holding it.
Spicerack - // But you can't just assume that any woman claiming rape has been raped. //
I would never suggest such a thing, which flies in the face of natural justice.
// And to get to the truth one has to look at her behaviour before and after the alleged attack. //
I fail to see what her 'behaviour' before the attack has to do with anything, since, if I understand you correctly, we are in agreement that a woman's behaviour of any sort does not lay her open to assault, or mitigate much less excuse the perpetrator of such assault.
As to her 'behaviour' afterwards - this I believe may speak to the facts that some abused women return repeatedly to their attacker.
But to draw the conclusion that such behaviour means that she accepts or encourages such attacks by that returning behaviour is to simply ignore the fact that many abused women do return to their attackers because of complex and deeply flawed relationships based on fear and manipulation.
To adopt the simple assumption that any such 'returning' woman knows what she is letting herself in for, is to callously abandon victims to their fate based on a repugnant assumption that any such woman is, in effect 'asking for it'.
I would never suggest such a thing, which flies in the face of natural justice.
// And to get to the truth one has to look at her behaviour before and after the alleged attack. //
I fail to see what her 'behaviour' before the attack has to do with anything, since, if I understand you correctly, we are in agreement that a woman's behaviour of any sort does not lay her open to assault, or mitigate much less excuse the perpetrator of such assault.
As to her 'behaviour' afterwards - this I believe may speak to the facts that some abused women return repeatedly to their attacker.
But to draw the conclusion that such behaviour means that she accepts or encourages such attacks by that returning behaviour is to simply ignore the fact that many abused women do return to their attackers because of complex and deeply flawed relationships based on fear and manipulation.
To adopt the simple assumption that any such 'returning' woman knows what she is letting herself in for, is to callously abandon victims to their fate based on a repugnant assumption that any such woman is, in effect 'asking for it'.
Mmm, yes, after the attack would be more appropriate but there have been woman who had accused every male they came into contact with of rape, so I think that should be considered.
But say an ex maliciously accused you and you could prove she had continued a relationship for some time after the allegation. That, imo, should be considered.
I've got a feeling that Khandro's example was dismissed. He was only found guilty on 2 counts. Doubtful they were both hers.
But say an ex maliciously accused you and you could prove she had continued a relationship for some time after the allegation. That, imo, should be considered.
I've got a feeling that Khandro's example was dismissed. He was only found guilty on 2 counts. Doubtful they were both hers.
While you clearly know nothing, khandro. I was very wary about getting involved on here, particularly because of your and spicerack's attitudes. But, as there are likely to be others reading who are equally disgusted, I will...
What exactly are either of you banging on about previous behaviour for? Are you actually saying that they chose to be treated like this? Is it as simple as that, to you?
What exactly are either of you banging on about previous behaviour for? Are you actually saying that they chose to be treated like this? Is it as simple as that, to you?
Khandro - // AH; I see you are a bit of an expert on women. Hmmm! //
I suggest you get your eyes checked then, they are 'seeing' something that is not actually there.
I would never see 'women' as some sort of sub-species as you clearly do, and I have never professed myself to be an 'expert' on anything, here or anywhere else.
I suggest you get your eyes checked then, they are 'seeing' something that is not actually there.
I would never see 'women' as some sort of sub-species as you clearly do, and I have never professed myself to be an 'expert' on anything, here or anywhere else.
Khandro - // pixie, one of the first lessons in life we learn from experience, is you never put your hand in the fire twice. //
Your ability to reduce the circumstances of the life-changing experiences of some victims to a simple childhood homily would be breathtakingly insensitive, were it not entirely in keeping with the simplistic views you have on just about anything you discuss on this site.
Fire is inanimate. It burns every time you touch it, to exactly the same degree in the same circumstances, without fear of favour, so teaching that as a lesson is entirely rational and appropriate.
To suggest that such a comparison exists for the behaviour of any human being, from multi-millionaire film producers to tube train gropers is not only naïve, it is again offensive to women who are victims to such behaviour.
Your consistency is clear, if deplorable.
Your ability to reduce the circumstances of the life-changing experiences of some victims to a simple childhood homily would be breathtakingly insensitive, were it not entirely in keeping with the simplistic views you have on just about anything you discuss on this site.
Fire is inanimate. It burns every time you touch it, to exactly the same degree in the same circumstances, without fear of favour, so teaching that as a lesson is entirely rational and appropriate.
To suggest that such a comparison exists for the behaviour of any human being, from multi-millionaire film producers to tube train gropers is not only naïve, it is again offensive to women who are victims to such behaviour.
Your consistency is clear, if deplorable.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
With The S N P Taking A Beating.......
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.