Gendered attack at bus stop in Limerick

Kimsang

A young woman was assaulted and robbed while waiting at Arthurs’ Quay in the early hours of last Friday morning(fri 24th May) by a group of women.

Why do some women get upset, angry, emotional, virtriolic, nasty, vicious and just down right offended at other women existing?

They could have just minded their business about the gender of who they were attacking, but they rather intervene in stranger's lives and beat them up for being a woman!


https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DfiCx-CxhwkJ:https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/crime-and-courts/420690/garda-warning-following-vicious-late-night-attack-at-limerick-bus-stop.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

OldMrBrennan83

Scumbags rob someone. What's the sexuality ****e about?

spurious

What is a gendered attack? One on or by a man or woman?
Thread makes no sense.


Muslims!!!!

Kimsang

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Scumbags rob someone. What's the sexuality ****e about?

Apologies, corrected as gender

Il Fascista

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Scumbags rob someone. What's the sexuality ****e about?

I think that that's his point

jon1981

Likewise, not getting the point you're making OP? Scum bags attack innocent victim. What's the gender got to do with it? The scum bag trait exists among men and women.

Naydy

She was attacked by four women and a man according to that article and so what difference does gender make (surely irrelevant??).... Awful crime but I'm not sure what sort of point you are trying to make.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Did we read the same article. What has gender to do with it? And apart from the gender of the victim and perpetrators have I missed something?

Kimsang

These 4 girls attacked another girl, it is clear they attacked her because of her gender. Which should make it a gender attack. Hate crime!!!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kimsang wrote: »

These 4 girls attacked another girl, it is clear they attacked her because of her gender. Which should make it a gender attack. Hate crime!!!

And when four lads beat up and rob another man is it a 'gender' attack too????

banie01

Kimsang wrote: »

These 4 girls attacked another girl, it is clear they attacked her because of her gender. Which should make it a gender attack. Hate crime!!!

Why is that clear?
Why is it a hate crime?
Surely it is just as likely that 4 girls identified a lone person that could be robbed?
The fact that they were female is really incidental.

And hate crime? Really?
Theft with violence is not a hate crime.

OldMrBrennan83

Kimsang wrote: »

Apologies, corrected as gender

Same question but substitute in gender.

Insect Overlord

Kimsang wrote: »

These 4 girls attacked another girl, it is clear they attacked her because of her gender. Which should make it a gender attack. Hate crime!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgyLQ2jVsuY

Kimsang

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Same question but substitute in gender.

These girls would not have attacked a man. It is clearly a gendered attack.

Zaph

Kimsang wrote: »

These 4 girls attacked another girl, it is clear they attacked her because of her gender.

How is that clear? They attacked her because they're scumbags. Where is the evidence that they attacked her because of her gender? Is it simply because it's unusual for women to make unprovoked attacks on a man in the street because they're afraid he'd fight back? That doesn't make it a "gendered" attack, it makes it a cowardly one.

banie01

Kimsang wrote: »

These girls would not have attacked a man. It is clearly a gendered attack.

Yes they very likely would have had a man placed himself in the same situation.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

A young woman was assaulted and robbed while waiting at Arthurs’ Quay in the early hours of last Friday morning(fri 24th May) by a group of women.

Why do some women get upset, angry, emotional, virtriolic, nasty, vicious and just down right offended at other women existing?

They could have just minded their business about the gender of who they were attacking, but they rather intervene in stranger's lives and beat them up for being a woman!


https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DfiCx-CxhwkJ:https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/crime-and-courts/420690/garda-warning-following-vicious-late-night-attack-at-limerick-bus-stop.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Unlike the London bus attack, there is no evidence that sex/ gender was a factor here.

Try harder.

Kimsang

banie01 wrote: »

Why is that clear?
Why is it a hate crime?
Surely it is just as likely that 4 girls identified a lone person that could be robbed?
The fact that they were female is really incidental.

And hate crime? Really?
Theft with violence is not a hate crime.

I agree with you.

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

These girls would not have attacked a man. It is clearly a gendered attack.

Could you quote what makes you think that from the linked article?

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Unlike the London bus attack, there is no evidence that sex/ gender was a factor here.

Try harder.

For something to be a hate crime, sex/gender doesn't have to be a factor, it must be the MAIN MOTIVATOR.

Do you think these girls would have attacked a man??

banie01

Kimsang wrote: »

I agree with you.

If you agree with me, you would see that gender of the victim is irrelevant.
It was an opportunistic theft of a lone victim.

Their genitals had fúck all to do with it.

Kimsang

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you quote what makes you think that from the linked article?

Do you think these 4 girls would just as happily attacked a man?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kimsang wrote: »

These girls would not have attacked a man. It is clearly a gendered attack.

Collie D

OP is trying to make a point that not every crime against someone of a certain gender/sexuality/race/etc. is due to their gender/sexuality/race/etc. but also misses the point that some are.

Kimsang

banie01 wrote: »

If you agree with me, you would see that gender of the victim is irrelevant.
It was an opportunistic theft of a lone victim.

Their genitals had fúck all to do with it.

Yes alot of what I've posted here is tongue in cheek, I'm really trying to highlight the absurdity of this thread https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057986697

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

C’mon guys, it’s pretty obvious what the OP is up to. All the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

OldMrBrennan83

Kimsang wrote: »

These girls would not have attacked a man. It is clearly a gendered attack.

Multiple scumbags attack single person. Swap genders in anywhere to that sentence and it's going to happen.

Kimsang

Parker Nutritious Sometimes wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

Do you think these 4 girls would just as happily attacked a man?

There were four women and a man involved so yes, I'd imagine they'd had have a go.


As I asked earlier - Could you quote what makes you think this was a "gendered attack" from the linked article?

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

For something to be a hate crime, sex/gender doesn't have to be a factor, it must be the MAIN MOTIVATOR.

Do you think these girls would have attacked a man??

Can you provide any evidence that this group targeted the victim because she was a woman?

Do you have anything apart from your own opinion to back up your point of view?

That’s the difference.

Kimsang

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you quote what makes you think that from the linked article?

From my experience women don't physically attack men, they do it emotionally.

I do however see all the time of reports of women attacking other woman.

This means that women are misogynist!

paw patrol

Victim fcuked up failing to play the LGBT card - This card is so useful I've actually bought one on the black market for myself.

Car99

Kimsang wrote: »

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you quote what makes you think that from the linked article?

Do you think these 4 girls would just as happily attacked a man?

Yes if they thought they could succeed in their goal to overpower and rob the victim.

Collie D

Insect Overlord wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgyLQ2jVsuY

I think OP missed this so I’ll just quote it.

alchemist33

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

Not a single person made that argument in the other thread.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

If you wanted to, for some unknown reason, expand the argument from the other thread to a new thread basically discussing the same thing, then you should have found an example that fits your angle on it because this incident is a big fail.

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

From my experience women don't physically attack men, they do it emotionally.

Your experience does not contain the whole of human behaviour.

Kimsang wrote: »

I do however see all the time of reports of women attacking other woman.

This means that women are misogynist!

You're still not answering the question .Could you quote what makes you think this was a "gendered attack" from the linked article?

Zaph

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

There is no comparison between the two attacks. The gang on the bus saw the two women kissing and knew they were gay. They then attacked them because the women wouldn't "put on a show" for them. They wouldn't have made the same demands of two straight women sitting beside each other on the bus, so while the women may not have specifically been attacked for being gay, they were attacked because they were gay. Whether you like it or not, that's a homophobic attack.

banie01

Kimsang wrote: »

From my experience women don't physically attack men, they do it emotionally.

I do however see all the time of reports of women attacking other woman.

This means that women are misogynist!

It's this kind of stupidity that makes it incredibly difficult for men in an abusive relationship to seek help or to even disclose their abuse.

Because women don't physically attack men!

That is a moronic statement that if you are a man, I hope you never have to face up to disproving.

Try seeking help as a man, abused by a women and prepare for a whole new level of emasculation.

Kimsang

Collie D wrote: »

OP is trying to make a point that not every crime against someone of a certain gender/sexuality/race/etc. is due to their gender/sexuality/race/etc. but also misses the point that some are.

I don't miss the point that some are because of gender/sexuality/race.

But the only way we can prove this, is basically if the people openly espouse their horrid views, like the KKK or the NAZIs.

Collie D

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't miss the point that some are because of gender/sexuality/race.

But the only way we can prove this, is basically if the people openly espouse their horrid views, like the KKK or the NAZIs.

Maybe not but you’re certainly trying to play it down.

Kimsang

banie01 wrote: »

It's this kind of stupidity that makes it incredibly difficult for men in an abusive relationship to seek help or to even disclose their abuse.

Because women don't physically attack men!

That is a moronic statement that if you are a man, I hope you never have to face up to disproving.

Try seeking help as a man, abused by a women and prepare for a whole new level of emasculation.

I apologize, women certainly do attack men in domestic situations. I mean if women are out on the street ready to mug someone, they will choose women because it would be easier, they would be smaller and weaker. Misogynists

Gimme A Pound

This relates to the attack in London.

The OP, instead of being concerned by the assault, views the way the opening post was phrased as "an attack on men" (their words) because the opening poster mentioned the attackers' sex and wrote "why do some men etc" and even though they did say "some" men, it's an attack on men full stop.

Now while I do agree that the phrasing might be different in relation to members of other groups, it's utterly beyond me how wording of a post regarding an attack on two women... could be an attack on men in general (even when using the word "some").

Kimsang

alchemist33 wrote: »

Not a single person made that argument in the other thread.

That is exactly the sentiment expressed in the other thread.

Kimsang

Collie D wrote: »

Maybe not but you’re certainly trying to play it down.

No, I'm trying to make sure real hate crimes are not diluted to the point of being conflated with being called nasty words.

Remember when we talk about hate crimes, we mean more punishment than an equivalent violent crime.

Kimsang

Esmeralda Disgusting Slang wrote: »

This relates to the attack in London.

The OP, instead of being concerned by the assault, views the way the opening post was phrased as "an attack on men" (their words) because the opening poster mentioned the attackers' sex and wrote "why do some men etc" and even though they did say "some" men, it's an attack on men full stop.

Now while I do agree that the phrasing might be different in relation to members of other groups, it's utterly beyond me how wording of a post regarding an attack on two women... could be an attack on men in general (even when using the word "some").

So i'm not concerned unless I say I'm concerned? Some warped logic there....
Otherwise how can you tell that I'm not concerned?

Kimsang

Zaph wrote: »

There is no comparison between the two attacks. The gang on the bus saw the two women kissing and knew they were gay. They then attacked them because the women wouldn't "put on a show" for them. They wouldn't have made the same demands of two straight women sitting beside each other on the bus, so while the women may not have specifically been attacked for being gay, they were attacked because they were gay. Whether you like it or not, that's a homophobic attack.

'Victims' say a lot of things in our victim-hood culture.

I'm not disputing the fact that those people were attacked in London.
I dispute the motivation for those attacks.
Using hateful slurs during an attack doesn't constitute a hatecrime,

The motivation for the attack is what constitutes a hate crime. Nazis rounded jews up in systematically gassed them to death based on their religion. That is a hate crime.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

No, I'm trying to make sure real hate crimes are not diluted to the point of being conflated with being called nasty words.

Remember when we talk about hate crimes, we mean more punishment than an equivalent violent crime.

You’re trying to make the point that the London attack wasn’t homophobic based on the hypothetical that these scumbags might have attacked someone else.

But what you don’t appear to understand is that your hypothetical doesn’t matter because the attack they actually did carry out was explicitly homophobic.

There is clear evidence that it was homophobic.

The fact that the group might have carried out a non-homophobic attack in a different context doesn’t change the fact that this attack absolutely, definitely was homophobic.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

'Victims' say a lot of things in our victim-hood culture.

I'm not disputing the fact that those people were attacked in London.
I dispute the motivation for those attacks.
Using hateful slurs during an attack doesn't constitute a hatecrime,

The motivation for the attack is what constitutes a hate crime. Nazis rounded jews up in systematically gassed them to death based on their religion. That is a hate crime.

The HOLOCAUST is where you draw the line? You have to literally be rounding people up and murdering them before it’s a hate crime?

You should see a therapist OP, that is truly messed up.

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The HOLOCAUST is where you draw the line? You have to literally be rounding people up and murdering them before it’s a hard crime?

You should see a therapist OP, that is truly messed up.

Can you please have some consideration for nuance????

Its already a crime to murder people. We added extra weight to the crime of murdering people, if they did it because it was motivated by hate. No one disagrees with this.

But to implement this it means intent must be proved.
The Southern Povery Law centre was set up for precisely this reason, to prosecute the KKK.

Its not that they couldn't prosecute the KKK for their heinous crimes, but with the introduction of the SPLC, they could give them STRONGER SETNENCES.

This is what we're talking about, giving people longer sentences for equivalent crimes, because hateful words were also thrown in. This is completely ridiculous, and dilutes the notion of what a hate crime is.

banie01

So the OP seems to be implying that the 2 girls that were attacked when they wouldn't perform a kiss on demand for the edification of a group of boys/men...
Were not targeted and attacked because of their sexuality?

And that targeting a person/people because of race/colour/creed/orientation is not sufficiently vile enough to seek punishment as a hate crime?

Really?

Or am I getting this wrong?