How ridiculous is this?

Snakeblood

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

It's not that hard to understand TBH.

She was attacked, told and caused the husband to go.

She did technically wreck the home by telling; that's the logic the schoolkids think by too.
So did she deserve it? No obviously. Is she one? Meh; depends on your view. I don't think she is but I can easily understand why people would think it.

Homewrecker is active, she was responding to what had been done to her. It's not apt. Schoolkids call people all sorts of names that don't apply, and this is one of them. It's not a matter of opinion, you're wrong.

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

She would have no reason to 'tell' if the fúckwit hadn't attacked her. In no way can she be seen as a homewrecker - that home is better off without him. And 'Meh' is not an appropriate response to questions about rape

I'm going to try once more and if you refuse to actually read then I'm putting you on ignore.

I did not mention rape when I said some girls look 18ish.

I did not mention this girl in particular.

I did not say that she deserved it in anyway at all.

And I did not say she was a homewrecker.

What I DID say however is: I can understand why she was called one; I can see the reasoning for calling her one.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Homewrecker is active, she was responding to what had been done to her. It's not apt. Schoolkids call people all sorts of names that don't apply, and this is one of them. It's not a matter of opinion, you're wrong.

That's all well and good but you're just proving my point more.

It is based on opinion! If a girl sleeps with two men is she a slut? Depends on people's opinion.

Same girl gets hammered at a party and a guy has sex: rape or her own fault?

All just an opinion.

Saadyst

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

It's not that hard to understand TBH.

She was attacked, told and caused the husband to go.

She did technically wreck the home by telling; that's the logic the schoolkids think by too.
So did she deserve it? No obviously. Is she one? Meh; depends on your view. I don't think she is but I can easily understand why people would think it.

Actually I don't think you do understand. People "get" that women / girls are called homewreckers because they "tempt" men away from their stable relationships, that's not what people have issue with.

What you seem to be missing is that no reasonable thinking person would ever think to apply that to a victim of sexual abuse - kids are not typically reasonable thinking people and as such can just spout of random verbal abuse to be "cool" in front of their mates. There is no understanding of what the word means; the word is irrelevant. The point to notice is that a victim of sexual abuse is being victimised again by other kids. They would use whatever word they could to look cool or whatever other purpose.

Your focusing on the actual word I thought was an attempt at trolling or a poor joke at best; but you are actually just missing the point completely.

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I'm going to try once more and if you refuse to actually read then I'm putting you on ignore.

I did not mention rape when I said some girls look 18ish.

I did not mention this girl in particular.

I did not say that she deserved it in anyway at all.

And I did not say she was a homewrecker.

What I DID say however is: I can understand why she was called one; I can see the reasoning for calling her one.

That's fine - please do. You come across as an arrogant cóck who just wants to goad people into reacting to you. This is a forum about a rape case so I find it hard to believe you felt it was perfectly natural to drop in & mention that some girls look older than they are and not have people relate the two. I didn't ever say that you called her a homewrecker - I simply said that she isn't and it isn't appropriate for anyone to call her so. You may find it hard to believe but you are not the motivation behind my every opinion.

Chaotic_Forces

Saadyst wrote: »

Actually I don't think you do understand. People "get" that women / girls are called homewreckers because they "tempt" men away from their stable relationships, that's not what people have issue with.

What you seem to be missing is that no reasonable thinking person would ever think to apply that to a victim of sexual abuse - kids are not typically reasonable thinking people and as such can just spout of random verbal abuse to be "cool" in front of their mates. There is no understanding of what the word means; the word is irrelevant. The point to notice is that a victim of sexual abuse is being victimised again by other kids. They would use whatever word they could to look cool or whatever other purpose.

Your focusing on the actual word I thought was an attempt at trolling or a poor joke at best; but you are actually just missing the point completely.

Oh no; I am not missing the point or trying to be funny or troll.

I understand everyone else.

Can you understand why some people would think she IS a homewrecker though? Particulary kids. It's not like they're going to have the same reasoning we do at all. They more than likely just see "X's friend told that X's father did stuff and now he goes bye-bye, it's all her fault".

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

That's fine - please do. You come across as an arrogant cóck who just wants to goad people into reacting to you. I didn't ever say that you called her a homewrecker - I simply said that she isn't and it isn't appropriate for anyone to call her so. You may find it hard to believe but you are not the motivation behind my every opinion.

I never said it was appropiate though...

I said I can understand why people think it.

Acutally I'll even make it clearer: I'm slightly chubby: someone calls me fat. Am I fat? No. Do I understand why they called me fat; yes.

Does that explain anything at all?

Teutorix

optogirl wrote: »

That's fine - please do. You come across as an arrogant cóck who just wants to goad people into reacting to you. This is a forum about a rape case so I find it hard to believe you felt it was perfectly natural to mention that some girls look older than they are and not have people relate the two. I didn't ever say that you called her a homewrecker - I simply said that she isn't and it isn't appropriate for anyone to call her so. You may find it hard to believe but you are not the motivation behind my every opinion.

I believe the phrase your looking for is ''ITT: trolls''

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I never said it was appropiate though...

I said I can understand why people think it.

Acutally I'll even make it clearer: I'm slightly chubby: someone calls me fat. Am I fat? No. Do I understand why they called me fat; yes.

Does that explain anything at all?

You continue to say you understand the reasoning behind her being called a homewrecker. I don't. It has nothing to do with my not understanding. Get off your high horse.

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

You continue to say you understand the reasoning behind her being called a homewrecker. I don't. It has nothing to do with my not understanding. Get off your high horse.

Okay. I'll let someone else try to explain to you that kids can be mean.

Saadyst

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Oh no; I am not missing the point or trying to be funny or troll.

I understand everyone else.

Can you understand why some people would think she IS a homewrecker though? Particulary kids. It's not like they're going to have the same reasoning we do at all. They more than likely just see "X's friend told that X's father did stuff and now he goes bye-bye, it's all her fault".

I think I already answered that in my post.

To be honest, saying "Yeah, I totally understand why other kids are calling that abuse victim a homewrecker"... in a thread discussing the issue of kids being abused... if you don't understand what a huge knob end this makes you look... not much else anyone can say to you.

Chaotic_Forces

Saadyst wrote: »

I think I already answered that in my post.

To be honest, saying "Yeah, I totally understand why other kids are calling that abuse victim a homewrecker"... in a thread discussing the issue of kids being abused... if you don't understand what a huge knob end this makes you look... not much else anyone can say to you.

Um I don't think you did. Or if you did I missed it.

optogirl

Saadyst wrote: »

I think I already answered that in my post.

To be honest, saying "Yeah, I totally understand why other kids are calling that abuse victim a homewrecker"... in a thread discussing the issue of kids being abused... if you don't understand what a huge knob end this makes you look... not much else anyone can say to you.

Wait - I get it. Everyone else is stupid and chaotic is weary of having to EXPLAIN and help us UNDERSTAND.

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

Wait - I get it. Everyone else is stupid and chaotic is weary of having to EXPLAIN and help us UNDERSTAND.

KIDS ARE MEAN!

There I put it as bluntly as fu*king possible...

Donkey Oaty

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Acutally I'll even make it clearer: I'm slightly chubby: someone calls me fat. Am I fat? No. Do I understand why they called me fat; yes.

Does that explain anything at all?

No. You are giving the term "homewrecker" a meaning it does not have.

The implication is that the victim, girl, whatever, had consensual jiggy with the married guy.

Teutorix

Can we get some mod intervention, this is starting to look like a flame war more and more. Im just waiting for the hitler references.

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

KIDS ARE MEAN!

There I put it as bluntly as fu*king possible...

NOt the point you were making to begin with - what you said was that you can understand the reasoning behind calling her a homewrecker. Simple. I can't. Simple. Nothing to do with kids.

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

No. You are giving the term "homewrecker" a meaning it does not have.

The implication is that the victim, girl, whatever, had consensual jiggy with the married guy.

Okay that I can understand. Yes but you have to understand if I'm a 13 year old child I'm hardly going to be able to have enough empathy to understand the trauma the poor girl went though. I'm just going to say what I think.

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

NOt the point you were making to begin with - what you said was that you can understand the reasoning behind calling her a homewrecker. Simple. I can't. Simple. Nothing to do with kids.

Right... who called her a homewrecker? Classmates.

What did I say just now? KIDS CAN BE MEAN!

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Right... who called her a homewrecker? Classmates.

What did I say just now? KIDS CAN BE MEAN!

have you not put me on ignore yet? What I am saying is that you said YOU UNDERSTOOD THE REASONING BEHIND THIS.

Donkey Oaty

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Okay that I can understand. Yes but you have to understand if I'm a 13 year old child I'm hardly going to be able to have enough empathy to understand the trauma the poor girl went though. I'm just going to say what I think.

So perhaps you can withdraw this comment:

But she is a homewrecker. At least in the meaning of the word.

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

So perhaps you can withdraw this comment:

I don't believe it appears in the Oxford dictionary so it can be left up to interpitation. But I yes; some people can think that would be one meaning.

Donkey Oaty

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I don't believe it appears in the Oxford dictionary so it can be left up to interpitation. But I yes; some people can think that would be one meaning.

Apparently it does appear in the OED.

From a post in wordrefrence.com:

A person who is blamed for the break-up of a marriage or similar long-term relationship, usually because of his or her affair with one of the partners; a person regarded as of this type.
In earlier use esp. a man; now esp. a woman.


1913 J. HUNEKER Pathos of Distance iv. 74 Hans Bélart..was very frank in his disclosures of the affair, treating Wagner as if he were the veriest ingrate and home-wrecker. 1939 Times 16 Mar. 14/5 The luckless young man who has been asked to pretend that uncontrollable passion has made him a home wrecker. 1960 S. KAUFFMAN If it be Love II. i. 123 She certainly didn't seem a luscious home-wrecker.

Some points stand out:

• The emphasis is on ending the marriage, not just having an affair.
• Interesting that in earlier times it more often refered to a man (not sure what the significance is, but a factoid.)
• Dates back at least to 1913.

You can see it listed in many current on-line dictionaries, and in every single one the emphasis is on a relationship of some kind.

If a man burgled my house and he goes to jail after I report him to police, you could not call me a homewrecker.

That's why it's incorrect and an insult to the victim.

Maybe you can understand why the classroom bullies wanted to label her as something she wasn't, but be clear of this: she wasn't a homewrecker in any sense of the word.

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Apparently it does appear in the OED.

From a post in wordrefrence.com:



You can see it listed in many current on-line dictionaries, and in every single one the emphasis is on a relationship of some kind.

If a man burgled my house and he goes to jail after I report him to police, you could not call me a homewrecker.

That's why it's incorrect and an insult to the victim.

Maybe you can understand why the classroom bullies wanted to label her as something she wasn't, but be clear of this: she wasn't a homewrecker in any sense of the word.

Wondeful! You get me, great!.

Of course she isn't one but come on; kids are kids; they are very quick with insults and labels.

Hopefully with you having your little explanation for anyone else that didn't understand people will be clear.

Thanks,
CF

Donal Og O Baelach

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Wondeful! You get me, great!.

Of course she isn't one but come on; kids are kids; they are very quick with insults and labels.

Hopefully with you having your little explanation for anyone else that didn't understand people will be clear.

Thanks,
CF

So you admit you were wrong, but feel you were right to be wrong all along? I see....

Chaotic_Forces

Donal Og O Baelach wrote: »

So you admit you were wrong, but feel you were right to be wrong all along? I see....

No I feel that I didn't explain well enough.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

No I feel that I didn't explain well enough.

I feel like my heads about to explode

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

I feel like my heads about to explode

I constantly mentioned how I understand people could call her that.
I never said she was one.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I constantly mentioned how I understand people could call her that.
I never said she was one.

AGHGHGHGHGHGHG :mad:

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

AGHGHGHGHGHGHG :mad:

Just fu*king explain what your argument against me is...

Donkey Oaty

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Just fu*king explain what your argument against me is...

I think he's referring to post 17.

Nodin

Teutorix wrote: »

Can we get some mod intervention, this is starting to look like a flame war more and more. Im just waiting for the hitler references.

Was ist? Der Fuhrer? He has returned?

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I think he's referring to post 17.

Ah I see now what (if it was that) was the issue.

See, we as adults know it's not proper to call someone that.

The classmates are just kids; they more than likely honestly thought she was one. That's all I was trying to say.

On another point: can you like follow me on the boards and point out when I'm not understand things, you actually seem to be helpful.

Donkey Oaty

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Ah I see now what (if it was that) was the issue.

See, we as adults know it's not proper to call someone that.

The classmates are just kids; they more than likely honestly thought she was one. That's all I was trying to say.

On another point: can you like follow me on the boards and point out when I'm not understand things, you actually seem to be helpful.

Now have a read of post 78. Can you understand his Ahhhhhhhhhngst?

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not usually one for rabble but I'm left shocked after hearing about two separate incidents and court hearings on the radio just now.

The first case was in relation to a man who attempted to rape a woman back in 2009, he recieved a 12 year sentence with 3 suspended. That sounds lenient to me, but probably about right for such a crime.
...........................

But - considering the history of said individual - its safe to say that he's got some serious serious mental issues. Now while fucking him inside for 9 years keeps him away from harming others for that period of time (hopefully), is he going to be any less afflicted after it, when he emerges back on the streets? To my mind its another case where someone should be sent to a secure facility for detention, rather than jail.

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Now have a read of post 78. Can you understand his Ahhhhhhhhhngst?

No? You don't think he thought me understanding and agreeing that to a child she is a home wrecker since they don't truely understand how such words can affect someone is actually saying she is one?

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

No? You don't think he thought me understanding and agreeing that to a child she is a home wrecker since they don't truely understand how such words can affect someone is actually saying she is one?

I think you have repeated yourself over 50 times now.

anyone know where i can get cheap rope?

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

I think you have repeated yourself over 50 times now.

anyone know where i can get cheap rope?

So according to you: I understand why kids call her one and to a kid she is one = she is a homewrecker?

My name is URL

Nodin wrote: »

But - considering the history of said individual - its safe to say that he's got some serious serious mental issues. Now while fucking him inside for 9 years keeps him away from harming others for that period of time (hopefully), is he going to be any less afflicted after it, when he emerges back on the streets? To my mind its another case where someone should be sent to a secure facility for detention, rather than jail.

Maybe.. again it comes down to judges making suspect calls on certain cases. On the one hand they want there to be space in prisons so they hand down sentences which are far too lenient, and on the other hand they pass on sending mentally ill criminals to the proper facilities. It's a joke.. there seems to be no overall plan on what they want to achieve. People get all hot and bothered if it's suggested that the President step in and sort it out, even though she's the one who appoints judges and the only one with the power to do anything.

Chaotic_Forces

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe.. again it comes down to judges making suspect calls on certain cases. On the one hand they want there to be space in prisons so they hand down sentences which are far too lenient, and on the other hand they pass on sending mentally ill criminals to the proper facilities. It's a joke.. there seems to be no overall plan on what they want to achieve.

The law can't apply the same standards to everyone.

Let's say I get drunk and sexually assualt some woman; what do I fall under? Drunk and disorderly? Rapist? Mental illness that cause me to attack?

If that was the case then the retarded man that slugs someone would be given the same sentence as me for slugging him since he slugged someone else.

My name is URL

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

The law can't apply the same standards to everyone.

That's because there is no standard here.. if there was a standard then it could be applied to everyone. Other countries manage to set a standard, and can differentiate between the criminal and the criminally insane.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

The law can't apply the same standards to everyone.

Let's say I get drunk and sexually assualt some woman; what do I fall under? Drunk and disorderly? Rapist? Mental illness that cause me to attack?

If that was the case then the retarded man that slugs someone would be given the same sentence as me for slugging him since he slugged someone else.

Thats a clear cut case of rape, drunk and disorderly is cursing at a guard or fighting outside the pub.

Chaotic_Forces

My name is URL wrote: »

That's because there is no standard here.. if there was a standard then it could be applied to everyone. Other countries manage to set a standard, and can differentiate between the criminal and the criminally insane.

But people will call it backwards and that it doesn't belong here.

Yes the idea that sexual assault can carry a minimum of ten years is nice but come on: "oh he raped me your hounour, see it was my fault I got drunk and slept with him but even though he was far drunker; it's his fault he raped me".

People will find a manner to either kick up or else take advantage.

Think about it: some little fecker on your street that you dislike say he tried to steal your car; locked up for a few years.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Thats a clear cut case of rape, drunk and disorderly is cursing at a guard or fighting outside the pub.

I know, obviously. But there isn't going to ever be a time when we can list everything that is and is not against the law.

Apprently it's legal to have sex with a 17 year old but illegal to video it... the law is indeed an ass.

But what's more; the law will always be an ass in the eyes of the people it controls.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

But people will call it backwards and that it doesn't belong here.

Yes the idea that sexual assault can carry a minimum of ten years is nice but come on: "oh he raped me your hounour, see it was my fault I got drunk and slept with him but even though he was far drunker; it's his fault he raped me".

People will find a manner to either kick up or else take advantage.

Think about it: some little fecker on your street that you dislike say he tried to steal your car; locked up for a few years.

Drunken consensual sex is not rape.

Donkey Oaty

My name is URL wrote: »

That's because there is no standard here.. if there was a standard then it could be applied to everyone. Other countries manage to set a standard, and can differentiate between the criminal and the criminally insane.

Ireland has such a law as well. You can plead "Not guilty by virtue of insanity", and will be detained in a secure hospital.

Rightly so, on all counts.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Drunken consensual sex is not rape.

Ah but people have been declared guilty since consent can't be given when drunk.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Ah but people have been declared guilty since consent can't be given when drunk.

cant consent to a legal contract. does that apply to sex? also if both people are drunk the man was raped also if thats the case.

KilaWhale

The thread title sums up my opinion of some of the chaotic reasoning on this thread....

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

cant consent to a legal contract. does that apply to sex? also if both people are drunk the man was raped also if thats the case.

Hence why the law is an ass!

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Hence why the law is an ass!

No judge would allow a man be convicted of rape if it was drunken sex between two adults. Cite a case where this actually happened.