Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

I really don't get the problem at all. The metoo movement is anti rapist and anti scummy and rapey behaviour. It is not anti men, the only people who should get offended by it is rapists and those who participate in rapey behaviour. Can someone explain what's wrong with all of that?

Calhoun wrote: »

Why should we believe them without questioning their motives. I edited my last post after you responded.

However my point was what if you were accused of something as serious as rape, and by default your accuser was believed because of their sex. What would you do if you were innocent? Your life would for the most part be ruined in Ireland.

What motives? They've been assaulted or harassed in some way, thousands of women have said this. Ask your mother, your sister, your female friends, they'll all have examples of this behaviour. Are they all liars?

DONTMATTER wrote: »

But you didn't answer, why do you disagree? All I'm saying is that the treatment of women as we seen in the metoo campaign is disgusting and we should do something about it, how can you disagree with that?

As I've asked, what are you objecting to exactly?

I've ignored nothing.

And you have again. You keep making these sweeping statements about the amount (although amount being big/large) of sexual assault and rape in Ireland. You have just stated that such behavior is tolerated, and I've asked you to prove that. What do I get in response? The above. And this isn't the only time you've shrugged off requests to back up your statements... and each time you've ignored the request.

If it's not tolerated then how come it's such a regular occurance?

Rape is a regular occurrence? seriously>? What's regular? one a week, two a fortnight? 66 every month? Come on, give us some links/statistics to support these vague declarations of yours.

But first... I really want to see where the rape of women is tolerated in this country. Prove it.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

What motives? They've been assaulted or harassed in some way, thousands of women have said this. Ask your mother, your sister, your female friends, they'll all have examples of this behaviour. Are they all liars?

So all men are default harassers are they also rapists? Have you abused women in the past?

Deleted User wrote: »

And you have again. You keep making these sweeping statements about the amount (although amount being big/large) of sexual assault and rape in Ireland. You have just stated that such behavior is tolerated, and I've asked you to prove that. What do I get in response? The above. And this isn't the only time you've shrugged off requests to back up your statements... and each time you've ignored the request.

Rape is a regular occurrence? seriously>? What's regular? one a week, two a fortnight? 66 every month? Come on, give us some links/statistics to support these vague declarations of yours.

But first... I really want to see where the rape of women is tolerated in this country. Prove it.

You haven't answered any of my questions, why should I answer yours?
And I'm talking about the metoo movement, it's not just rape.

Calhoun wrote: »

So all men are default harassers are they also rapists? Have you abused women in the past?

How did you get that out of what I said?

Earlier it was claimed that the metoo campaign was full of mental people, it looks more like the anti metoo campaign is full of mental people!

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You haven't answered any of my questions, why should I answer yours?
And I'm talking about the metoo movement, it's not just rape.

Monkey Man wrote: »

You realise men have men killed themselves because of the meetoo witchhunt? Lost their jobs because of very minor allegations?

I really hope you get burned by this movement.

Terrible! But you do realise that women have been raped and abused and have killed themselves because of it?

This is all quite scary. The anti metoo movement don't seem to realise that they're defending rapists and creepy individuals. You can work away on that. I'm out!

Thank fuk you're leaving. Some sense can return instead of misguided whinging and nonsense.

CrankyHaus

A well intentioned movement degenerated into a mindless outrage cycle, with the media feeding on the outraged.

Have to laugh at the BBC headline :

"Henry Cavill: Actor apologises after #MeToo rape backlash"

Deliberately implies an actual rape occurred for maximum triggering.

Tbh if you get involved you're just being an unpaid actor in a media production.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

How did you get that out of what I said?

Earlier it was claimed that the metoo campaign was full of mental people, it looks more like the anti metoo campaign is full of mental people!

Well i get the impression from you that all men are sexual predators and will harrass and rape at will. We don't need courts of law any more we just need twitter and to be of the female sex.

I find it hilarious when wanting a fair society that believes in the rule of law is equated to being a defender of rape

givyjoe

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Yes, so what's the problem? The other fella said that women should go to court, it's all fair but you agreed with me, the sentences rapists receive and the ordeal women have to go through doesn't make it appealing.

It's actually not rare at all. As we see from this thread, women's stories are doubted off the bat, they don't even know the women.

That was just a headline case, it mightn't reach the news but rapists returning to their communities while their victims are forced out is not that uncommon.

Missus DONTMATTER, are you from the Midlands by any chance?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seem to... I didn't say that you had openly said it.

Yet if anyone reads anything that you didn’t literally say in your posts you usually have a fit.

You don’t SEEM TO believe these women.

You SEEM TO be asking them all for proof of harassment before you’ll accept it.

You SEEM to be saying that many of them are lying.

Calhoun wrote: »

Well i get the impression from you that all men are sexual predators and will harrass and rape at will. We don't need courts of law any more we just need twitter and to be of the female sex.

I find it hilarious when wanting a fair society that believes in the rule of law is equated to being a defender of rape .

Except believing women’s experience does not equate to convicting someone in a court of law.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet if anyone reads anything that you didn’t literally say in your posts you usually have a fit.

You don’t SEEM TO believe these women.

You SEEM TO be asking them all for proof of harassment before you’ll accept it.

You SEEM to be saying that many of them are lying.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except believing women’s experience does not equate to convicting someone in a court of law.

Jesus Christ would you ever come out and say whatever it is you want to say directly! :pac:

It's quite simple - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say that other people should simply believe people solely on the basis that you think they should be believed. In the absence of evidence, then the issue is one of credibility.

When you set the standard of credibility so low that it is based solely on a person's gender, then it shouldn't surprise you that other people have different standards by which they determine the credibility of a person's narratives, and if a person claims their narrative is based upon their experiences, then people whose experiences do not correlate with that persons experiences, are going to question the credibility of that person's narrative.

Nobody, regardless of their gender, is entitled to be believed by default when they accuse another person of wrongdoing. When they accuse another person of wrongdoing, in order for that person to be punished, it has to be first established that they are guilty of any wrongdoing. Punishing someone without evidence of any wrongdoing is an injustice itself. That's why we don't do it, that's why a person accused of wrongdoing is entitled to a fair trial, rather than simply being convicted on the basis that their accuser should automatically be believed by default.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Jesus Christ would you ever come out and say whatever it is you want to say directly! :pac:

It's quite simple - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say that other people should simply believe people solely on the basis that you think they should be believed. In the absence of evidence, then the issue is one of credibility.

When you set the standard of credibility so low that it is based solely on a person's gender, then it shouldn't surprise you that other people have different standards by which they determine the credibility of a person's narratives, and if a person claims their narrative is based upon their experiences, then people whose experiences do not correlate with that persons experiences, are going to question the credibility of that person's narrative.

Nobody, regardless of their gender, is entitled to be believed by default when they accuse another person of wrongdoing. When they accuse another person of wrongdoing, in order for that person to be punished, it has to be first established that they are guilty of any wrongdoing. Punishing someone without evidence of any wrongdoing is an injustice itself. That's why we don't do it, that's why a person accused of wrongdoing is entitled to a fair trial, rather than simply being convicted on the basis that their accuser should automatically be believed by default.

I am saying what I want to say directly. Maybe you should listen?

Me too has nothing to do with criminal trials. The vast majority of me too does not name names. The vast vast majority of me too was women sharing experiences of random men, not named men.

So apart from a few celebs there was no trial by media for the many perpetrators of the harassment that was catalogued by me too.

And I’m not saying to believe someone based on their gender. I’m saying believe a group of people who all tell me they have the same experience. I’ve talked to female friends and they’ve all been harassed at some point. I see all the women online sharing their stories, most of which share many features.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet if anyone reads anything that you didn’t literally say in your posts you usually have a fit.

Did you even bother to read the other posters' contributions? My "seem to" was in line with the general theme of her/his posts.

I generally have a fit when people twist what I post... there's quite a bit of difference here.

You don’t SEEM TO believe these women.

Except I didn't even suggest that they were lying. I merely said that the claims should be investigated and verified.

You SEEM TO be asking them all for proof of harassment before you’ll accept it.

I'm asking them to inform the Gardai and have their claims investigated.

You SEEM to be saying that many of them are lying.

And yet, there's nowhere I even came close to suggesting it. The use of seem to was reasonable considering the previous posts by that poster... but then, I suspect you're here just stirring up crap.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you even bother to read the other posters' contributions? My "seem to" was in line with the general theme of her/his posts.

I generally have a fit when people twist what I post... there's quite a bit of difference here.

Except I didn't even suggest that they were lying. I merely said that the claims should be investigated and verified.

I'm asking them to inform the Gardai and have their claims investigated.

And yet, there's nowhere I even came close to suggesting it. The use of seem to was reasonable considering the previous posts by that poster... but then, I suspect you're here just stirring up crap.

Nah I just think your perception of your “being in line with the general theme” but others “twisting” is basically the same thing.

If he didn’t say it literally then can’t you be accused of twisting his words?

Badly Drunk Boy

cursai wrote: »

Cue weird sad person who comes up with a skewed and twisted man hating argument to make him look like Jimmy Saville

I was going to do that but I couldn't word it correctly. I'm no Jimmy Saville....

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except believing women’s experience does not equate to convicting someone in a court of law.

Do we believe in all cases at all times? the whole metoo thing is enough at the moment to kill someones career.

What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I am saying what I want to say directly. Maybe you should listen?

Rest assured I'm listening intently, I find your perspective fascinating, truly... fascinating

Me too has nothing to do with criminal trials. The vast majority of me too does not name names. The vast vast majority of me too was women sharing experiences of random men, not named men.

Metoo was a whole mixed bag of stuff, so while for you it may not have been about criminal trials, for many more people it appears that it was about criminal trials and the procedures and outcomes of criminal trials, the treatment of women who came forward to make complaints of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, the treatment of the accused, and the poor conviction rates in criminal cases for alleged victims of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape.

The metoo movement was also about highlighting the prevalence of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape in societies across the globe, perpetrated mainly by men against women. It was to drive a particular narrative. Different people had different motivations for wanting to drive that narrative forward without question. It stands to reason that nobody likes to have their credibility or their narratives questioned.

But if society were to allow for narratives to go unquestioned, that would set a terrible precedent for society and drive society back into the Dark Ages, the ages where people were punished for questioning things which made no sense to them.

So apart from a few celebs there was no trial by media for the many perpetrators of the harassment that was catalogued by me too.

Right, because there was no evidence of any transgression. So why would you believe someone unquestionably who publishes in the public domain an account of their experiences? The reason is quite simple - because you want to. And that's fair enough, I don't have any issue with what or who you choose to believe whatsoever. That's entirely your own business. But if you attempt to condemn and criticize people who do not choose to believe what or who you choose to believe, then you're into very dodgy territory. Now you're not just choosing to believe what you want to believe any more, but you want other people to believe it too. How can they when what you believe does not correlate with their experiences? It stands to reason that they're not going to believe something on the basis that they have no experience of it, and you have no evidence for it.

And I’m not saying to believe someone based on their gender. I’m saying believe a group of people who all tell me they have the same experience. I’ve talked to female friends and they’ve all been harassed at some point. I see all the women online sharing their stories, most of which share many features.

Well you can choose to believe who or what you like, on whatever basis you like, but if you want other people to believe what you believe, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence for your claims, rather than on the people who do not believe your claims. I would suggest you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than a handful of anecdotes which you choose to believe already if you want to convince anyone else that they should believe too in something for which they have no experience, and you can present no evidence.

Calhoun wrote: »

Do we believe in all cases at all times? the whole metoo thing is enough at the moment to kill someones career.

What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

As I said, the vast vast majority of metoo is a simple sharing of experiences that does not name a perpetrator.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rest assured I'm listening intently, I find your perspective fascinating, truly... fascinating

Metoo was a whole mixed bag of stuff, so while for you it may not have been about criminal trials, for many more people it appears that it was about criminal trials and the procedures and outcomes of criminal trials, the treatment of women who came forward to make complaints of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, the treatment of the accused, and the poor conviction rates in criminal cases for alleged victims of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape.

The metoo movement was also about highlighting the prevalence of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape in societies across the globe, perpetrated mainly by men against women. It was to drive a particular narrative. Different people had different motivations for wanting to drive that narrative forward without question. It stands to reason that nobody likes to have their credibility or their narratives questioned.

But if society were to allow for narratives to go unquestioned, that would set a terrible precedent for society and drive society back into the Dark Ages, the ages where people were punished for questioning things which made no sense to them.

Right, because there was no evidence of any transgression. So why would you believe someone unquestionably who publishes in the public domain an account of their experiences? The reason is quite simple - because you want to. And that's fair enough, I don't have any issue with what or who you choose to believe whatsoever. That's entirely your own business. But if you attempt to condemn and criticize people who do not choose to believe what or who you choose to believe, then you're into very dodgy territory. Now you're not just choosing to believe what you want to believe any more, but you want other people to believe it too. How can they when what you believe does not correlate with their experiences? It stands to reason that they're not going to believe something on the basis that they have no experience of it, and you have no evidence for it.

Well you can choose to believe who or what you like, on whatever basis you like, but if you want other people to believe what you believe, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence for your claims, rather than on the people who do not believe your claims. I would suggest you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than a handful of anecdotes which you choose to believe already if you want to convince anyone else that they should believe too in something for which they have no experience, and you can present no evidence.

Honestly, if someone believes the sheer volume of similar experiences shared by women under metoo is an attempt to “drive a particular narrative” then there’s not much else that can be said to them.

The idea that this is something I want to believe is pure nonsense. When numerous numerous people have the same experience I usually believe them, whether I want to or not.

I’m curious. If one person told you they were attacked in say Phibsboro would you think of it as a dangerous place? If 100 people told you they had been attacked in phibsboro would it change your mind?

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I said, the vast vast majority of metoo is a simple sharing of experiences that does not name a perpetrator.

Yes and for all of that there are cases where it was abused. Look at George Takei, i am not sure if he is actually an abuser or someone was trying to frame him.

I do have to say though i love the get out of trouble clause it did bring, with the Kevin Spacey incident.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Honestly, if someone believes the sheer volume of similar experiences shared by women under metoo is an attempt to “drive a particular narrative” then there’s not much else that can be said to them.

And so we find ourselves at a standoff as to what we choose to believe. The difference between us though is that I have no issue with you choosing to believe what you want. It would be nice if you extended me the same courtesy, but I don't expect it, any more than you shouldn't expect we should believe what we're told because a handful of people say it happens or has happened to them.

The idea that this is something I want to believe is pure nonsense. When numerous numerous people have the same experience I usually believe them, whether I want to or not.

You're choosing to believe them, because you want to, and I choose to believe that because of your use of the word 'usually', which implies that in some cases you don't believe what numerous people tell you. So whether or not you choose to believe what someone tells you is entirely based upon what you choose to believe. You want to believe on the basis of prejudice, not evidence.

I’m curious. If one person told you they were attacked in say Phibsboro would you think of it as a dangerous place? If 100 people told you they had been attacked in phibsboro would it change your mind?

It wouldn't make a difference whether it was 1 or 100 people who suggested on the basis of their experiences that Phibsboro is a dangerous place. Individuals making statements like that are basing their judgement entirely on their experiences and perspective, or lack thereof.

Such opinions are subjective and relative only to their previous experiences and beliefs. Without the ability to question their prejudices, biases and motivations for what they want me to believe, their opinions offer nothing of any value. This is why I say I have no issue with what other people choose to believe, but when one their beliefs is that everyone should believe what they believe without question, that's demanding something they aren't entitled to.

Ironic, isn't it? Considering their core philosophy is based around questioning what they perceive to be other peoples sense of entitlement?

Danny Donut

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I constantly joke with a mate of mine that if I was to ever somehow manage to sleep with someone again, I'll have to record them giving me permission to have sex with them. Scary thing is, it's a likely requirement these days.

Ok, I may be over-exaggerating a little... Just a little though.

Yes. I look back on my "bonking days" the late 70s/80s- very little was said about what bits were going where and what we would/would not do ...

I spent a short time near Aberdeen in the 70s, met a lovely girl in the pub, really funny and attractive. Went back to hers, sister and fiance out - bingo - we then had a 2 hour wrestling match of me trying to get her knickers off. Never managed it, but we parted as friends, promising to meet the next night.

Simpler times

ps: of course I could have completely misread the situation and she could be leading the #metoo thing

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And so we find ourselves at a standoff as to what we choose to believe. The difference between us though is that I have no issue with you choosing to believe what you want. It would be nice if you extended me the same courtesy, but I don't expect it, any more than you shouldn't expect we should believe what we're told because a handful of people say it happens or has happened to them.

Sorry but I don’t agree with you on this point at all. Your beliefs, reasons for belief, and reasons for “choosing” to believe are all open to question.

And it’s not a handful of people.

You're choosing to believe them, because you want to, and I choose to believe that because of your use of the word 'usually', which implies that in some cases you don't believe what numerous people tell you. So whether or not you choose to believe what someone tells you is entirely based upon what you choose to believe. You want to believe on the basis of prejudice, not evidence.

No sorry it’s nothing to do with my “want” to believe. I believe them for many various reasons jnclusing but not limited to hearing or from people I respect, the sheer volume of experience shared, personally witnessing this behaviour. Nothing to do with want or desire.

I used the word usually as I can imagine some bizarre situation where a load of people get together and lie in the face of all evidence.

I’ve never encountered one of these bizarre situations like this and so in ALL cases that I’ve experienced when a large number of people within a group share with me their experience of being in that group I have believed them.

It wouldn't make a difference whether it was 1 or 100 people who suggested on the basis of their experiences that Phibsboro is a dangerous place. Individuals making statements like that are basing their judgement entirely on their experiences and perspective, or lack thereof.

Such opinions are subjective and relative only to their previous experiences and beliefs. Without the ability to question their prejudices, biases and motivations for what they want me to believe, their opinions offer nothing of any value. This is why I say I have no issue with what other people choose to believe, but when one their beliefs is that everyone should believe what they believe without question, that's demanding something they aren't entitled to.

Ironic, isn't it? Considering their core philosophy is based around questioning what they perceive to be other peoples sense of entitlement?

Honestly I think it’s almost certain that there’s some information you’ve heard that you’ve believed because of volume of people experiencing it.

LLMMLL wrote: »

No sorry it’s nothing to do with my “want” to believe. I believe them for many various reasons jnclusing but not limited to hearing or from people I respect, the sheer volume of experience shared, personally witnessing this behaviour. Nothing to do with want or desire.

I used the word usually as I can imagine some bizarre situation where a load of people get together and lie in the face of all evidence.

I’ve never encountered one of these bizarre situations like this and so in ALL cases that I’ve experienced when a large number of people within a group share with me their experience of being in that group I have believed them.

If its allot of people and one perpetrator then chances are they are telling the truth.

Would you believe it if it was one female versus one male?