Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gendered attack at bus stop in Limerick

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Car99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Collie D
    Registered Users Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭Collie D


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgyLQ2jVsuY

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


  • Options
    #35
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,278 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,475 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Collie D
    Registered Users Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #43
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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").


  • Options
    #44
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    Not a single person made that argument in the other thread.

    That is exactly the sentiment expressed in the other thread.


  • Options
    #45
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,475 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    Kimsang wrote: »
    Can you please have some consideration for nuance????

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


  • Options
    #53
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    Be careful when arguing with stupid.


  • Options
    #54
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,475 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Options
    #55
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #56
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    An awful bang of incel off this thread


  • Options
    #57
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,689 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #58
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,689 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #59
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    This is absolutely pathetic


  • Options
    #60
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,689 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement