Faugheen wrote: » There was blood on his bed. Yes or No? The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.
ArthurDayne wrote: » You could have at least attempted to defend your use of the term 'mansplaining' but instead have chosen the easy way out with a petty swipe. I hope we can debate again sometime without you telling me that my gender renders my opinions of lesser worth to you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » An opinion formed on sensationalised 'facts' such as a bed 'COVERED in HER blood'. Go on outta that.
Mrsmum wrote: » Oh dear, you really don't like getting a woman's pov do you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How would he even begin to defend himself when you insist on guessing. You previously with Grayson sensationalized parts of the evidence. Completely bogus opinion.
Faugheen wrote: » How am I undermining the defence? How was the idea them getting Best to go to a trial undermining them? How were any of the facts that she was bleeding and hysterical undermining the defence? How are they sensationalist? We have three members of the defence saying she was upset, and we have a photograph of her blood on his bed. No sensationalism there. I am absolutely allowed to question the character of Jackson and Olding based on the events of the night in question. I do so by looking at facts and I form an opinion based on those facts. All of my opinions are based on the evidence that was presented in court. Have I said anywhere in the thread that my opinion is the right one? No. Do I demonstrate my opinion as fact? No. Do you? Yes. Now who is undermining who?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » That's the key word. Opinion. Look at his reaction. He looked like a man who was embarrassed. Judging by what he said, he might not have gone unless he was asked to. So it's not a completely 'bogus' opinion. Again, you've not given me any type of rebuttal. You've just got offended and dismissed my opinion. I don't have any interest in rebutting because it was then and is now a non-issue. What is interesting is your clingy need to under mine everything on the defendant's side of the events. By bogus guesswork and sensationalising.
Faugheen wrote: » That's the key word. Opinion. Look at his reaction. He looked like a man who was embarrassed. Judging by what he said, he might not have gone unless he was asked to. So it's not a completely 'bogus' opinion. Again, you've not given me any type of rebuttal. You've just got offended and dismissed my opinion.
ArthurDayne wrote: » The only thing more impressive than your politician-like refusal to answer my question with a Yes or No is how oblivious you are to your own blatant hypocrisy. You delve into theatrics about feeling sexist insults in your flesh and pores etc and then you engage in blatant sexism by saying that I am 'mansplaining' -- inferring that the value of my opinions is lessened in your perspective by the mere fact that I am a man? We may disagree on matters, and I don't believe myself to be any fairer-minded than anyone else (we are all the biased products of our personal circumstances, myself included) but I have been nothing but sincere with you. Yet, your response to my sincerity is to say that I am mansplaining to you?! That is an infuriating cop-out, both because you are devaluing my view purely because I am male and also that you are being astoundingly hypocritical. Having said that, I don't believe you deserve to lose your job over your sexist remarks towards me there. You didn't mean to be sexist right? You saying that I'm mansplaining doesn't encapsulate your view on men I'm sure. I do not think you are sexist purely because you made a remark that in writing may appear sexist. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to all those men you criticise for making sexist remarks that weren't meant with malice or hurtful intent?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Did you read my post? I said I believe he was tricked, but that it wasn't his intention. Honestly. You literally take a line and you choose what you want to read. He said he was advised by counsel to attend to get both sides of the story. If you're a character witness, you're there to speak for their character as you know them, not for what they're accused of doing. Look at the Tom Humphries case when David Walsh and Donal Og gave character witness statements. This was after he was found guilty. In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir. He didn't maliciously do this. That explain it a bit better for you? How would he even begin to defend himself when you insist on guessing. You previously with Grayson sensationalized parts of the evidence. Completely bogus opinion.
Faugheen wrote: » Did you read my post? I said I believe he was tricked, but that it wasn't his intention. Honestly. You literally take a line and you choose what you want to read. He said he was advised by counsel to attend to get both sides of the story. If you're a character witness, you're there to speak for their character as you know them, not for what they're accused of doing. Look at the Tom Humphries case when David Walsh and Donal Og gave character witness statements. This was after he was found guilty. In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir. He didn't maliciously do this. That explain it a bit better for you?
FrancieBrady wrote: » ............... They were actively looking for non commital sex.
joe40 wrote: » Exactly context and words are important. You are constantly trying to make out the word slut is just a descriptive term. It can be used in a jokey way between friends but normally it is a demeaning derogatory term. I'm not claiming to be anything great, I've done plenty of things I'm not proud of but I would never refer to someone as a "slut" Take these two sentences: "Johnny is overweight, and doesn't work as hard as he should" "Johnny is a fat lazy slob" Have I said the same thing in both sentences, expressed the same meaning. By the way I don't want to live in a society where people aren't allowed to say words just recognise they are offensive, if you still want to go ahead go for it. If I met a person for the first time and during a conversation they referred to someone as a "slut" I wouldn't rate them as much of a man.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » With regards to Best. I don't think he went out to intimidate the witness as was claimed by some extremists. However I do think he was badly advised as a way to get him into the courtroom. He was asked by the defence to attend. He was under no obligation to attend as the only person who can do that is the judge. For the captain of the international rugby team to turn up to a trial of two of his team-mates on the day a woman who says they raped her began her evidence was very inappropriate. What made it worse for him was the fact we already heard in the opening statements that the complainant said 'Ulster would rally around them' or words to that effect. For anyone to say Best went there as an intimidation tactic is way OTT, but I feel the defence counsel intentionally got him in to cause a stir and he was made a fool of. So he was there to affect the witness but he wasnt either. :rolleyes:
Faugheen wrote: » With regards to Best. I don't think he went out to intimidate the witness as was claimed by some extremists. However I do think he was badly advised as a way to get him into the courtroom. He was asked by the defence to attend. He was under no obligation to attend as the only person who can do that is the judge. For the captain of the international rugby team to turn up to a trial of two of his team-mates on the day a woman who says they raped her began her evidence was very inappropriate. What made it worse for him was the fact we already heard in the opening statements that the complainant said 'Ulster would rally around them' or words to that effect. For anyone to say Best went there as an intimidation tactic is way OTT, but I feel the defence counsel intentionally got him in to cause a stir and he was made a fool of.
FrancieBrady wrote: » joe40 wrote: » Just on the topic of the word "slut" A wee experiment to do. On another thread in boards call a poster a "slut" would it be acceptable by the mods i.e meet with the standards of the forum we are all using. I'm genuinely not sure how it would go? You can use most descriptive words in a negative way. The problems usually arise when a third party with a different sensibility takes offence. I.E. The C word. I could say ' you are some c***' and mean it affectionately and call a woman 'a ****' and be arrested.
joe40 wrote: » Just on the topic of the word "slut" A wee experiment to do. On another thread in boards call a poster a "slut" would it be acceptable by the mods i.e meet with the standards of the forum we are all using. I'm genuinely not sure how it would go?
meeeeh wrote: » No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.
NAGDEFI wrote: » tritium wrote: » Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best? I thought he was the devil incarnate still? Clearly I didn’t get the memo...... I said for me. He was asked to attend court. For me an admirable man. I'm not part of any of these online # campaigns.
tritium wrote: » Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best? I thought he was the devil incarnate still? Clearly I didn’t get the memo......
jm08 wrote: » It was consensual sex. If kiwis are so liberated, surely his partner would not have minded? Why would the ABs worry about whether he had sex in a disabled toilet if it was consensual (and private)? The New Zealand Prime Minister had rather a lot to say including comments about the ABs being role models. Why do you refer to it as a sex scandal. It was between two consenting adults. What is scandalous about that? Surely in a liberated country like you claim NZ is, that wouldn't be an issue?
NAGDEFI wrote: » In 2 independent opinion polls a silent majority feel as i do and believe, at this time, they should not represent Ireland. So obviously a huge swathe of opinion aren't happy with these 'private' conversations.
Mrsmum wrote: » First off from your posts I think you put yourself across as someone who in your mind is fairminded but in every post you give every bit of doubt benefit to the male of the species which in fairness is because you are a man and you see things from a man's pov. Believe me you know nothing about how it is to be a woman so leave off with the mansplaning to me what I should see and feel as opposed to what I do see from a woman's pov. What I do see is that imo those guys have a serious lack of respect for women. From their conversations a good night is when 'sluts get f****d'. The girl is an object, there not as a human being at all but as a body with orifices to f**k. Her enjoyment is immaterial because she is meaningless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if sex to them is another game with winners and losers. Now on the "queer" example and context. It's all very well calling someone a queer perhaps if you are laughing with them and they are laughing back. It's good to be able to laugh and make fun of oneself and that's what they would be doing there. But if they heard that you and others laughed,joked and made fun of them as a 'queer', I'd say they wouldn't be your friend long. As if they were off and committed suicide and it was shown that your texts had contributed to their distress, I think saying but I was only messing with me mates wouldn't hold much weight. Tell that to the queers mother at his funeral. Here's a little experiment for you. When you wake up tomorrow tell yourself you are a slut in it's most offensive meaning. Really really feel it. Keep telling yourself that night and day until it is in your pores, your skin, your bones and your flesh and really feel the insult of it every time. And after that let me tell you you would want to be very friendly with another person before you would laugh when they called you that. That's context for you. When I hear another woman being called a slut I feel it like a slap. More context for you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Like I said. You dont have any answers just plenty of indignation. Here's hoping neither you nor yours ever uses a word somebody finds objectionable for some vague arbitary reason. Good luck
meeeeh wrote: » I'm afraid you wouldn't understand logic if it kicked you in the arse.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fairly typical response - cop out when the dodgy logic of the argument catches up with you. So 'slang' is verboten in the Brave New World.
meeeeh wrote: » I don't know, English is not my first language. B7t people are perfectly able to use non slang words in their conversations. Who said you have to express yourself in slang? As for the other part of your reply, I take it you never heard of sarcasm or double meaning?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Who’s forcing you? If you don’t want to do those things then don’t, it’s as simple as that.
meeeeh wrote: » It's just expressing an opinion, a conversation, IRFU can do whatever they want.
