Consent classes for Irish rugby team

Wibbs wrote: »

How dare you make a moral judgement on one gender and not the other!!

Meh, it always boils down to the underlying credo of "feminism": Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

And when you wave the flag of "uterus owner and non feminist" - the backlash begins!

Mental stuff!! I called Serena Williams a few choice names for her pathetic rant at the US Open, and was told "she's defending herself as a mother" - WTF ???? "You don't support women" - not when they're being a brat I don't!!!!

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They do not work a regular 9 to 5 job. Their job involves promotional work. How they behave impacts on that.

Indeed, modern pro sports are as much about the brand and sponsorship as anything else, and the sportsmen get paid accordingly. It's all part of the deal

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I remember the day the verdict came in, I actually had to leave the office for the above I was getting.

My "crime" ? Saying I believed we should respect the handing down of a verdict by a jury of their peers.

But then I've been called a rape apologist for saying I believe Cristiano Ronaldo.

Which bit? When he admits he raped yer one?

Wibbs

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How is being an arsehole somehow morally abhorrent and being a tart is not ?

How dare you make a moral judgement on one gender and not the other!!

Meh, it always boils down to the underlying credo of "feminism": Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

They do not work a regular 9 to 5 job. Their job involves promotional work. How they behave impacts on that.

FunLover18

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

FunLover18 wrote: »

They were found NOT GUILTY, meaning that the jury did not believe that the evidence presented by the prosecution was enough to rule out any possible doubt that they were guilty.

It's the same thing. Our society is founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Therefore a not guilty verdict = an innocent individual.

There's a reason it's a "not guilty" verdict and not an "innocent" verdict and it's because that's not what it means. A jury is charged with determining a person's guilt based on the evidence put before them, not their innocence.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

I remember the day the verdict came in, I actually had to leave the office for the above I was getting.

My "crime" ? Saying I believed we should respect the handing down of a verdict by a jury of their peers.

But then I've been called a rape apologist for saying I believe Cristiano Ronaldo.

Triceratops Ballet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So should no distinction be made between actions taken in public and actions taken in private? In what you post on Twitter and what you text privately to your friends? In what you say in a TV interview and what you say in the pub or at the dinner table at home?

There are a lot of upsides to being famous, but one major downside is that you don't really say things in private anymore, when everyone knows who you are someone is always watching so rightly or wrongly you have less privacy than the likes of you or me. That's just how it is.
While they're having the consent classes they could probably do with a bit of training on how to be savvy about their privacy and how to deal with the media etc

Sardonicat wrote: »

That's pretty obvious from your posts. There is no need to extrapolate. It's very clear.

You seem to believe that's a bad thing ?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So they were arseholes in private that got found out?

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

Sardonicat

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And plenty of women (myself included) would rather choke than be considered a feminist.

That's pretty obvious from your posts. There is no need to extrapolate. It's very clear.

TheChizler wrote: »

All consent classes or just the ones in the OP? Because if you're saying the former then that's certainly untrue.

I'd hate to be the male student in my place that refused to go.

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Most male feminists are predators in disguise. I would not associate with such individuals.

Or people like Justin Trudeau who is so "woke" it's scary.

TheChizler

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Is the irony in that these consent classes have to be mandatory and forced on men not lost on people?

You aren't allowed to refuse consent to take part in consent classes.

All consent classes or just the ones in the OP? Because if you're saying the former then that's certainly untrue.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They were private messages. People are and should be free to say anything they like in private to their close friends or family and not have it affect their careers and public lives. This is the fault of a legal system which allows such evidence to be leaked to the public in the absence of a conviction, not the individuals who exchanged those messages. Being an arsehole while not on the job is not something which should affect someone's employment.

So they were arseholes in private that got found out?

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And plenty of women (myself included) would rather choke than be considered a feminist.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah there was no crime in the eye of the law, that's what I said.

However they, as representatives of the IRFU, acted in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a representative of the IRFU. The IRFU has a right to ask it's employees to act responsibly as a representative of the brand, it's probably something that exists in most employment contracts. They broke the terms of their contract and were punished for it. They would have gotten many perks as reps of the IRFU, all they're asked for in return is to uphold the values of the organisation and put their best foot forward. If they can't do that why shouldn't the IRFU take action?

So should no distinction be made between actions taken in public and actions taken in private? In what you post on Twitter and what you text privately to your friends? In what you say in a TV interview and what you say in the pub or at the dinner table at home?

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And a lot of women oppose "feminism" which goes beyond asking for equality and asks for wholescale social and cultural engineering.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How is being an arsehole somehow morally abhorrent and being a tart is not ?

Did the lady have sponsorship deals?

Triceratops Ballet

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And the minute they do the Mulally etc crowd are on them. Can't win.

Oh and they may have been "submitted in evidence" but as they were found not guilty, and we operate on "innocent till proven guilty" there was no crime.

I'm sure you'd like there to have been but there was not.

Yeah there was no crime in the eye of the law, that's what I said.

However they, as representatives of the IRFU, acted in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a representative of the IRFU. The IRFU has a right to ask it's employees to act responsibly as a representative of the brand, it's probably something that exists in most employment contracts. They broke the terms of their contract and were punished for it. They would have gotten many perks as reps of the IRFU, all they're asked for in return is to uphold the values of the organisation and put their best foot forward. If they can't do that why shouldn't the IRFU take action?

Sardonicat

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Someone, please control these women!

I said feminists not women. As much you would like to confuse the terms, they are not the same thing.

True, some men are feminists too.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The messages they sent to each other showed them up as arseholes. No company will want to associate themselves with arseholes. It just isnt good publicity.

They were private messages. People are and should be free to say anything they like in private to their close friends or family and not have it affect their careers and public lives. This is the fault of a legal system which allows such evidence to be leaked to the public in the absence of a conviction, not the individuals who exchanged those messages. Being an arsehole while not on the job is not something which should affect someone's employment.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The messages they sent to each other showed them up as arseholes. No company will want to associate themselves with arseholes. It just isnt good publicity.

How is being an arsehole somehow morally abhorrent and being a tart is not ?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And the minute they do the Mulally etc crowd are on them. Can't win.

Oh and they may have been "submitted in evidence" but as they were found not guilty, and we operate on "innocent till proven guilty" there was no crime.

I'm sure you'd like there to have been but there was not.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How did "they" bring anything into disrepute? If anyone brought the sport into disrepute it was either the CPS or the media. Conversations held entirely in private and then leaked to the public by others, which bring something into disrepute, are not the fault of those who held those conversations but those who publicised them.

The messages they sent to each other showed them up as arseholes. No company will want to associate themselves with arseholes. It just isnt good publicity.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How did "they" bring anything into disrepute? If anyone brought the sport into disrepute it was either the CPS or the media. Conversations held entirely in private and then leaked to the public by others, which bring something into disrepute, are not the fault of those who held those conversations but those who publicised them.

+1

A single woman wants to have sex with a single man purely because he has some degree of fame and she wishes to bask in some of that fame.

How does he end up the morally bankrupt one ? He slept with someone for no other reason that she was there and up for it. What's wrong with that ?

Sardonicat

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

The feminists are out of control in this country. Out of principle I would refuse to take part such a class.

Someone, please control these women!

Paulzx

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'd be very very annoyed if I was forced into doing something like this. Raised well, I'd consider myself a balanced individual who doesn't force himself upon anyone and knows what boundaries are and what no means. As said, it really seems like a box ticking exercise and I'd do my best to resist having to take part in it if I could.

I would be of the same opinion. I was raised to know the difference between right and wrong. It's an insult to basically be regarded as a potential rapist and to be told you need programming to ensure it doesn't happen.

The amount of men capable of raping a women is miniscule compared to the amount who would be abhorred by the thought of taking advantage of a women by force or if she was inebriated or vulnerable.

The predators who are capable of this will not be changed by a "consent" class.

Or am i a man that is completely out of touch with reality?

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Having thoughts like that aren't a crime, the messages were submitted in evidence for another crime. The players weren't punished by the courts for a bunch of whatsapp messages.
A bunch of employees who brought the name of the organisation they work for into disrepute had disciplinary action taken against them, if they feel they were punished unfairly or outside of the terms of their contracts, they are entitled to pursue a case against the IRFU.

How did "they" bring anything into disrepute? If anyone brought the sport into disrepute it was either the CPS or the media. Conversations held entirely in private and then leaked to the public by others, which bring something into disrepute, are not the fault of those who held those conversations but those who publicised them.