Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Can you see how your post comes across though? Gloating. Pointless, shitty point-scoring, telling someone they're 'gutted'. Like your 'team' ('Team Men's Rights' or whatever) has scored a victory against the 'feminazis', and now you're using that victory as a stick to beat them with. You're absolutely blind to that, aren't you?

There haven't been any winners here.

I don’t really care how it comes across to you. I wasn’t gloating, I was more looking for a reply as to whether you were gutted over the decision or not. I wasn’t on any side, I wouldn’t have won or lost regardless of the outcome.

This little ‘toys out of the pram’ rant has given me the answer anyway.

backspin.

I agree with Louise, no more trials for rape, as soon as an accusation is made take the man straight to jail. 20 years should do it. #ibelieveher

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I don’t really care how it comes across to you. I wasn’t gloating, I was more looking for a reply as to whether you were gutted over the decision or not. I wasn’t on any side, I wouldn’t have won or lost regardless of the outcome.

This little ‘toys out of the pram’ rant has given me the answer anyway.

No, you were definitely gloating. Which says a lot about the kind of person you are, quite frankly.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

No, you were definitely gloating. Which says a lot about the kind of person you are, quite frankly.

I wasn’t, so it doesn’t.

retro:electro

If people could stop saying they were “found innocent”, that would be great.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I wasn’t, so it doesn’t.

We both know that's exactly what you were doing. Telling me I'm 'gutted' because 'my team' lost or something. If you had any decency at all, you'd acknowledge that you slipped up there and showed your true colours.

retro:electro

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Nope. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

I do. But your terminology is incorrect and legally flawed.
They were found not guilty and by default presumed innocent. You cannot prove innocence.

pjohnson

retro:electro wrote: »

I do. But your terminology is incorrect and legally flawed.
They were found not guilty and by default presumed innocent. You cannot prove innocence.

Well technically they were always innocent. Its innocent until proven guilty and they were never found guilty.

sydthebeat

Who ever keeps updating the thread title.... Hats off.
Keeps me smiling

Will I Am Not

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

What are his 'true colours'?

Yeah. I’d like to hear this too.

Ejeca

This woman is evidently not 100% mentally and is deteriorating rapidly as her views are reinforced. I have no problem in someone trying to make fast money by being outlandish as often it's pretty harmless but the fact is a lot of young women are looking up to her as a role model and as a voice. I find friends mentioning her more and more randomly so her name is spreading and the lack of bottle shown by people interviewing her is just handing her the keys to the bank. My sister is a secondary teacher and she said the girls cannot stop talking about her books and how inspiring she is. I fail to see how someone who questions whether her grand father hates women, someone who is a blatant hypocrite who avoids all debate and blocks those who remotely disagree with her, who makes a slave of her mother and seems to laugh at it and has made some horrific claims and comments about men is a role model.

If parents actually knew what she was doing I'd struggle to see how they'd let their daughter's buy her book or go see her play but the reality is her Twitter feed is filled with grown women too. Are people that naive and that stupid? I hate to say the word stupid but it really is stupid. It's like some sick genre of comedy at times reading her articles. I see tonight she's harping on about the country hating women and how we need to believe and trust women and mentions the 8th amendment and references the trial today. Thank God the likes of her aren't jury members as she couldn't give a damn about evidence, she makes up her mind the second she sees the accused as white male, and the plaintiff is a woman. What's horrifying is that Twitter today shows that maybe it's not just a small majority but a lot of women out there share the views and would happily jail these lads without any evidence. These are normal looking woman who from quick glances at their profiles live normal lives! It's horrifying that so many exist in this country and God knows they'll only multiply.

Outlaw Pete

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979118258057023488

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979118258057023488

What a shameless bitch! :mad: Disgusting.

Pac1Man

Incredible how it is allowed in a legit paper.

Ipso

As long as she believes her, that's the main thing.

freshpopcorn

I actually thought we would have to wait until Saturday for this.

Wibbs

Ejeca wrote: »

Are people that naive and that stupid?

Many are E. Too many. The average person is mostly caught in the tide of whatever narrative is in currently in play and mostly they actually don't give a feck. Only those who aren't on edge waiting for a call from their bank about their mortgage and loans have the luxury of giving a sh1te. Ever wonder why the "middle class" are so seemingly eunuch'd these days? After all it's that "class" that give forth the revolutionaries in times past*. Keep them second guessing and that keeps them twattering on twitter impotently.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.

Modern "feminism"; Women are always agentless victims and it is always men's fault. It never fails to fit that line OP. So long as you apply that conclusion it is always clear as day.



*Lenin, Marx, all middle calls boys. Hell Che Guevara was from a rich family and was studying to be a doctor and Castro was the son and heir to a Cuban estate of twenty thousand acres. They co-opt the "working class" to serve their mission. For good and ill.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979118258057023488

(I cant believe I'm about to defend LON, but..)

You can't really say that..this case is extremely subjective..if this girl wanted to sleep with one of them, and was drunkenly coerced into 'spitroasting', that could very easily be considered rape..jesus...this case is bringing out the worst in people..

DavidLyons_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979118258057023488

Surely they can take legal action here? She's effectively saying they are rapists.

Outlaw Pete

Call me a cynic, but look what's coming to the Abbey:

https://www.abbeytheatre.ie/whats-on/asking-for-it/

markodaly

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Surely they can take legal action here? She's effectively saying they are rapists.

Yes, possibly.

I would love that to happen to her. She makes a defamatory comment against someone, which of course is totally false and someone takes her and her little feeble minded cult like ideology to the cleaners.


It is upsetting that some of her ilk, think that the issue is not that there was not enough evidence, or that the trial was mishandled or anything like that. Its that our society is so sexist and corrupt that basically all juries who grow up in it are somehow infected thus the reason why they were acquitted.

Maybe they were acquitted because they didn't do it and society is OK, no?

TheValeyard

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Surely they can take legal action here? She's effectively saying they are rapists.

Could see that happening actually. A lot of people could very easily find themselves in a lot of trouble with comments made :eek:

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

Incredible how it is allowed in a legit paper.

A new wave of easily offended brats has emerged and they are taking over everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUhc3Kv4ieE

markodaly

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Disgraceful and people wonder why she's disliked so much.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979118258057023488

Jesus ****ing christ, she even got a plug for her book in her pathetic front page monologue.
What an unashamed moneygrabbing wench! Totally and utterly shameless of her.

I used to wonder why she rubbed people up the wrong way, but god almighty, she takes the biscuit in so many levels.

markodaly

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Could see that happening actually. A lot of people could very easily find themselves in a lot of trouble with comments made :eek:

Well, she said it there that 'they were found not guilty, which is not the same as innocent'. Hint hint, they actually did it.

That alone is a good case for defamation. The examiner is playing loose here.

PhlegmyMoses

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(I cant believe I'm about to defend LON, but..)

You can't really say that..this case is extremely subjective..if this girl wanted to sleep with one of them, and was drunkenly coerced into 'spitroasting', that could very easily be considered rape..jesus...this case is bringing out the worst in people..

Where is the drunken thing coming from? There has been no suggestion that she was drunk throughout the whole trial?

PhlegmyMoses

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Where is the drunken thing coming from? There has been no suggestion that she was drunk throughout the whole trial?

I'm jumping to conclusions..

TheValeyard

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I actually thought we would have to wait until Saturday for this.

I thought the jury would be out for a few days myself.

sydthebeat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(I cant believe I'm about to defend LON, but..)

You can't really say that..this case is extremely subjective..if this girl wanted to sleep with one of them, and was drunkenly coerced into 'spitroasting', that could very easily be considered rape..jesus...this case is bringing out the worst in people..

The 3 women and 8 men in the jury who heard all the evidence and testimony in the trail came to the very conclusion that she was not coerced and that it was not rape. Unanimously, and very quickly.

That article is very very dangerous

Wibbs

markodaly wrote: »

It is upsetting that some of her ilk, think that the issue is not that there was not enough evidence, or that the trial was mishandled or anything like that. Its that our society is so sexist and corrupt that basically all juries who grow up in it are somehow infected thus the reason why they were acquitted.

Yep, the "patriarchy" again. Joke is juries with a majority of women are less likely to convict a man of rape and it seems less likely to believe the woman. This is seen throughout the world too. Here's an Irish study into it.

One of the research strands focused on a theory that the frequency of a male bias in rape juries contributed to the extremely low conviction rates for sex crimes.
Law lecturer Conor Hanly, giving his personal assessment of the preliminary results, said the results show this has no grounding in fact.

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape.

“This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors.

“Contrary to what social science research would lead us to expect, it would seem that female dominated juries are less sympathetic to rape complainants than are their male colleagues,” he said.

Turns out those damned sexist men are more sympathetic to rape victims and the more women there are on a jury the less likely a guilty of rape verdict will be handed down . So Mzzz O'Neill in your "feminist" matriarchal paradise it seems fewer rapists would end up in gaol. Then again no doubt that's still the patriarchy's fault.