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: » 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.
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: » 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.
Mrsmum wrote: » Oh dear, you really don't like getting a woman's pov do you.
FrancieBrady wrote: » An opinion formed on sensationalised 'facts' such as a bed 'COVERED in HER blood'. Go on outta that.
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.
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.
meeeeh wrote: » So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?
ArthurDayne wrote: » My apologies -- I don't understand what you're asking me there, or why. Would you mind elaborating and I'd be happy to hopefully give you a more fulfilled answer?
mfceiling wrote: » Good lad....the first ever person I've put on my ignore list.
tritium wrote: » Thing is ‘at this time’ there’s no chance they’ll represent Ireland. With two years out of competitive action they’ll be well off the pace. If I was the irfu I’d put something out like they won’t be considered for 6 months knowing that they wouldn’t be ready anyway. Then again I’m of the view that what they’ve gone through to get to a not guilty verdict is more than enough if punishments required for the WhatsApp stuff in terms of time served
Yeah_Right wrote: » meeeeh wrote: » So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel? I know you weren't asking me but if you were, I would need more info. Who is calling her a slut? What is the context of the conversation? Once I know that then I would be able to determine whether she should give a **** or not.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Competitive action at provincial level, wherever, though Tritium?
tritium wrote: » Im not sure I understand your question?
Calina wrote: » You don't get to determine that. She does.
NAGDEFI wrote: » You were saying 2 yrs away from Ireland and they've lost sharpness. I'm saying they'd be playing provincial equivalent rugby..
meeeeh wrote: » You got very uppity around statement that you have no clue what woman feels when she is called a slut. I don't like term mansplainng but being told constantly here how being called slut is not disrespectful, like it's some sort of a term of endearment is a bit tiring. I am just giving you a chance how woman with her experiences as woman should feel being called a slut. I wouldn'twant to hurt your feelings by telling you don't have a clue as a man. That would be sexist.
tritium wrote: » Do the folks being called rapists and misogynists also get to determine whether they should be offended by it? Only meeeh seems to think that’s different for some reason......
Yeah_Right wrote: » You seem obsessed by there being some blood on the bed. Have you never had a sexual encounter that resulted in some bleeding? Because I find that really surprising.
OwlsZat wrote: » Any chance we can have a poll for the complainant A) Was raped but not believed Wasn't raped but lied when afraid of slut shaming Are they the only possibilities?
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.
Appledreams15 wrote: » I'm a woman, i never have. It would have to be fairly violent to cause bleeding
Yeah_Right wrote: » Apologies. I will rephrase. With the extra information, I would be able to offer an informed opinion on whether or not I think the word slut is offensive. Of course the woman in that hypothetical situation has the right to take offense no matter my opinion. And I have the right to think she is being ridiculous.