Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

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?

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 .

[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.

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.

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.

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: »

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?

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: »

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.

That's the point people who disagree with your opinion are making! They are entitled to question people's beliefs, the reasons for their beliefs, and the reasons for those people choosing to believe what they do, and what they want everyone else to believe too.

You can't question people's beliefs and then turn round and say they aren't entitled to do the same, that's a hypocritical double standard which works entirely to your advantage, and puts people who are entitled to question what you want them to believe, and people who disagree with you, at a significant disadvantage.

And it’s not a handful of people.

It is, thankfully, relatively speaking in terms of any given population as a whole, the number of women who claim to have been subjected to sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, is but a handful of people.

However, having said that, I do understand that if you base your world view on the opinions of people who already agree with your world view, you're more likely to hold fast to your beliefs, and be put out by anyone who does not share your beliefs daring to question the basis of your belief, which doesn't correlate with their beliefs.

That's why I suggested as a compromise that we are at a standoff, because you have yet to present any evidence for your beliefs beyond expecting that I should simply take your word for it. I don't mind you believing what you want, but where we run into a problem is when you want me to believe what you believe too. In order for that to happen, I'm going to need more than just your word, I'm going to need 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's everything to do with your want and desire to believe what and whom you want to believe, and it appears to be solely based upon experiences which you are attuned to, and the opinions of people whom you respect already. And that's fine! There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with that. However, if you are to convince other people of the truth of your claims, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise your claims are of no value to people who do not feel obligated to respect either you or your opinions solely on the basis of your perspective of your experiences.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100, or even millions of women sharing the same accounts or even similar accounts of their experiences, particularly if they have no evidence. Then it's nothing more than a story, a narrative, based upon their perception and their perspective of their experiences. That's fine in an echo chamber, all reinforcing each others beliefs of their shared experiences, but it's when that narrative is presented to the world outside the echo chamber, then all bets are off, as they are not entitled to be believed, by anyone.

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.

And the basis for why you think this about me is what exactly?

I'm not breaking your balls here, but how the hell did it go over your head the whole point of this conversation that you come out with a statement like that?