nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gendered attack at bus stop in Limerick

Kimsang

A young woman was assaulted and robbed while waiting at Arthurs’ Quay in the early hours of last Friday morning(fri 24th May) by a group of women.

Why do some women get upset, angry, emotional, virtriolic, nasty, vicious and just down right offended at other women existing?

They could have just minded their business about the gender of who they were attacking, but they rather intervene in stranger's lives and beat them up for being a woman!

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DfiCx-CxhwkJ:https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/crime-and-courts/420690/garda-warning-following-vicious-late-night-attack-at-limerick-bus-stop.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

paw patrol

Victim fcuked up failing to play the LGBT card - This card is so useful I've actually bought one on the black market for myself.

Car99

Kimsang wrote: »

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you quote what makes you think that from the linked article?

Do you think these 4 girls would just as happily attacked a man?

Yes if they thought they could succeed in their goal to overpower and rob the victim.

Collie D

Insect Overlord wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgyLQ2jVsuY

I think OP missed this so I’ll just quote it.

alchemist33

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

Not a single person made that argument in the other thread.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

If you wanted to, for some unknown reason, expand the argument from the other thread to a new thread basically discussing the same thing, then you should have found an example that fits your angle on it because this incident is a big fail.

Odhinn

Kimsang wrote: »

From my experience women don't physically attack men, they do it emotionally.

Your experience does not contain the whole of human behaviour.

Kimsang wrote: »

I do however see all the time of reports of women attacking other woman.

This means that women are misogynist!

You're still not answering the question .Could you quote what makes you think this was a "gendered attack" from the linked article?

Zaph

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

There is no comparison between the two attacks. The gang on the bus saw the two women kissing and knew they were gay. They then attacked them because the women wouldn't "put on a show" for them. They wouldn't have made the same demands of two straight women sitting beside each other on the bus, so while the women may not have specifically been attacked for being gay, they were attacked because they were gay. Whether you like it or not, that's a homophobic attack.

banie01

Kimsang wrote: »

From my experience women don't physically attack men, they do it emotionally.

I do however see all the time of reports of women attacking other woman.

This means that women are misogynist!

It's this kind of stupidity that makes it incredibly difficult for men in an abusive relationship to seek help or to even disclose their abuse.

Because women don't physically attack men!

That is a moronic statement that if you are a man, I hope you never have to face up to disproving.

Try seeking help as a man, abused by a women and prepare for a whole new level of emasculation.

Kimsang

Collie D wrote: »

OP is trying to make a point that not every crime against someone of a certain gender/sexuality/race/etc. is due to their gender/sexuality/race/etc. but also misses the point that some are.

I don't miss the point that some are because of gender/sexuality/race.

But the only way we can prove this, is basically if the people openly espouse their horrid views, like the KKK or the NAZIs.

Collie D

Kimsang wrote: »

I don't miss the point that some are because of gender/sexuality/race.

But the only way we can prove this, is basically if the people openly espouse their horrid views, like the KKK or the NAZIs.

Maybe not but you’re certainly trying to play it down.

Kimsang

banie01 wrote: »

It's this kind of stupidity that makes it incredibly difficult for men in an abusive relationship to seek help or to even disclose their abuse.

Because women don't physically attack men!

That is a moronic statement that if you are a man, I hope you never have to face up to disproving.

Try seeking help as a man, abused by a women and prepare for a whole new level of emasculation.

I apologize, women certainly do attack men in domestic situations. I mean if women are out on the street ready to mug someone, they will choose women because it would be easier, they would be smaller and weaker. Misogynists

Gimme A Pound

This relates to the attack in London.

The OP, instead of being concerned by the assault, views the way the opening post was phrased as "an attack on men" (their words) because the opening poster mentioned the attackers' sex and wrote "why do some men etc" and even though they did say "some" men, it's an attack on men full stop.

Now while I do agree that the phrasing might be different in relation to members of other groups, it's utterly beyond me how wording of a post regarding an attack on two women... could be an attack on men in general (even when using the word "some").

Kimsang

alchemist33 wrote: »

Not a single person made that argument in the other thread.

That is exactly the sentiment expressed in the other thread.

Kimsang

Collie D wrote: »

Maybe not but you’re certainly trying to play it down.

No, I'm trying to make sure real hate crimes are not diluted to the point of being conflated with being called nasty words.

Remember when we talk about hate crimes, we mean more punishment than an equivalent violent crime.

Kimsang

Esmeralda Disgusting Slang wrote: »

This relates to the attack in London.

The OP, instead of being concerned by the assault, views the way the opening post was phrased as "an attack on men" (their words) because the opening poster mentioned the attackers' sex and wrote "why do some men etc" and even though they did say "some" men, it's an attack on men full stop.

Now while I do agree that the phrasing might be different in relation to members of other groups, it's utterly beyond me how wording of a post regarding an attack on two women... could be an attack on men in general (even when using the word "some").

So i'm not concerned unless I say I'm concerned? Some warped logic there....
Otherwise how can you tell that I'm not concerned?

Kimsang

Zaph wrote: »

There is no comparison between the two attacks. The gang on the bus saw the two women kissing and knew they were gay. They then attacked them because the women wouldn't "put on a show" for them. They wouldn't have made the same demands of two straight women sitting beside each other on the bus, so while the women may not have specifically been attacked for being gay, they were attacked because they were gay. Whether you like it or not, that's a homophobic attack.

'Victims' say a lot of things in our victim-hood culture.

I'm not disputing the fact that those people were attacked in London.
I dispute the motivation for those attacks.
Using hateful slurs during an attack doesn't constitute a hatecrime,

The motivation for the attack is what constitutes a hate crime. Nazis rounded jews up in systematically gassed them to death based on their religion. That is a hate crime.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

No, I'm trying to make sure real hate crimes are not diluted to the point of being conflated with being called nasty words.

Remember when we talk about hate crimes, we mean more punishment than an equivalent violent crime.

You’re trying to make the point that the London attack wasn’t homophobic based on the hypothetical that these scumbags might have attacked someone else.

But what you don’t appear to understand is that your hypothetical doesn’t matter because the attack they actually did carry out was explicitly homophobic.

There is clear evidence that it was homophobic.

The fact that the group might have carried out a non-homophobic attack in a different context doesn’t change the fact that this attack absolutely, definitely was homophobic.

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

'Victims' say a lot of things in our victim-hood culture.

I'm not disputing the fact that those people were attacked in London.
I dispute the motivation for those attacks.
Using hateful slurs during an attack doesn't constitute a hatecrime,

The motivation for the attack is what constitutes a hate crime. Nazis rounded jews up in systematically gassed them to death based on their religion. That is a hate crime.

The HOLOCAUST is where you draw the line? You have to literally be rounding people up and murdering them before it’s a hate crime?

You should see a therapist OP, that is truly messed up.

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The HOLOCAUST is where you draw the line? You have to literally be rounding people up and murdering them before it’s a hard crime?

You should see a therapist OP, that is truly messed up.

Can you please have some consideration for nuance????

Its already a crime to murder people. We added extra weight to the crime of murdering people, if they did it because it was motivated by hate. No one disagrees with this.

But to implement this it means intent must be proved.
The Southern Povery Law centre was set up for precisely this reason, to prosecute the KKK.

Its not that they couldn't prosecute the KKK for their heinous crimes, but with the introduction of the SPLC, they could give them STRONGER SETNENCES.

This is what we're talking about, giving people longer sentences for equivalent crimes, because hateful words were also thrown in. This is completely ridiculous, and dilutes the notion of what a hate crime is.

banie01

So the OP seems to be implying that the 2 girls that were attacked when they wouldn't perform a kiss on demand for the edification of a group of boys/men...
Were not targeted and attacked because of their sexuality?

And that targeting a person/people because of race/colour/creed/orientation is not sufficiently vile enough to seek punishment as a hate crime?

Really?

Or am I getting this wrong?

KikiLaRue

Kimsang wrote: »

Can you please have some consideration for nuance????

Perhaps if your threads were a little more nuanced it would help?

HappyAsLarE

Be careful when arguing with stupid.

banie01

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Perhaps if your threads were a little more nuanced it would help?

I'm agreeing with you an awful lot which considering our 1st boards interaction is a nice change

Kimsang

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Perhaps if your threads were a little more nuanced it would help?

Could you address my points instead of being snarky? I guess you lack the intelligence or attention span to do so.
You are what is wrong with society.

Billy Mays

An awful bang of incel off this thread

martingriff

I think OP is trying to show that a thread about women attacking someone will be a few pages and die a death while an attack in London by MEN on gay women goes on for ages. 1 they had no problem participating in

martingriff

Kimsang wrote: »

For something to be a hate crime, sex/gender doesn't have to be a factor, it must be the MAIN MOTIVATOR.

Do you think these girls would have attacked a man??

depends on the man and there size I suppose 5 against 1.

jam_mac_jam

This is absolutely pathetic

martingriff

Kimsang wrote: »

The exact same argument is being made in the other thread, that there's no way the gang would have attacked non gay people.

Nobody made that what people said was and you are missing it because you do not want to admit it was these 5 went specifically over as they were gay asked them to kiss and fondle each other and when they refused attacked them. See the difference yet

hatrickpatrick

The fact that so many people here missed the point OP was making is evidence enough to support that very point.