Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

If its allot of people and one perpetrator then chances are they are telling the truth.

Would you believe it if it was one female versus one male?

In those circumstances I’d have an open mind.

However I’m not talking about many women accusing one man or one woman accusing one man.

I’m talking about many women talking about many men. Many women saying this is a common experience for them without naming or talking about one particular man.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

In those circumstances I’d have an open mind.

However I’m not talking about many women accusing one man or one woman accusing one man.

I’m talking about many women talking about many men. Many women saying this is a common experience for them without naming or talking about one particular man.

Do you think men by default are sexual predators? should we introduce laws against them?

Jerichoholic

It's almost as sad as Cumberbatch thinking he had to apologise for slavery 200 years before he was born.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the point people who disagree with your opinion are making! They are entitled to question people's beliefs, the reasons for their beliefs, and the reasons for those people choosing to believe what they do, and what they want everyone else to believe too.

You can't question people's beliefs and then turn round and say they aren't entitled to do the same, that's a hypocritical double standard which works entirely to your advantage, and puts people who are entitled to question what you want them to believe, and people who disagree with you, at a significant disadvantage.

Firstly I think it’s an error to equate 1. questioning someone’s reason for believing/not believing a group of people with a common experience and 2. Questioning the common experiences of a group of people which you’re not a part of.

But for the sake of argument I’ll pretend these are the same thing:

You are free to question the experiences of these women. Nobody is stopping you.

However I’m highly suspect of someone who when faced with a huge number of reports of a common experience among a group that they’re not a part of responds with doubt.

Now me thinking you have dodgy reasons for that doubt does not prevent you from doing whatever you like.

There’s no question of entitlement here

It is, thankfully, relatively speaking in terms of any given population as a whole, the number of women who claim to have been subjected to sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, is but a handful of people.

Every woman I know has experienced the type of harassment that was brought up in metoo.

However, having said that, I do understand that if you base your world view on the opinions of people who already agree with your world view, you're more likely to hold fast to your beliefs, and be put out by anyone who does not share your beliefs daring to question the basis of your belief, which doesn't correlate with their beliefs.

That's why I suggested as a compromise that we are at a standoff, because you have yet to present any evidence for your beliefs beyond expecting that I should simply take your word for it. I don't mind you believing what you want, but where we run into a problem is when you want me to believe what you believe too. In order for that to happen, I'm going to need more than just your word, I'm going to need evidence.

Except that I’ve never asked you to take my word. I’ve repeatedly said (is this the 4th time or 5th) that one of the things I find convincing is the sheer volume of metoo experiences. Not my word. Thousands and thousands of women’s word.

It's everything to do with your want and desire to believe what and whom you want to believe, and it appears to be solely based upon experiences which you are attuned to, and the opinions of people whom you respect already. And that's fine! There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with that. However, if you are to convince other people of the truth of your claims, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise your claims are of no value to people who do not feel obligated to respect either you or your opinions solely on the basis of your perspective of your experiences.

Again no. It is based on the experiences of a huge number of women.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100, or even millions of women sharing the same accounts or even similar accounts of their experiences, particularly if they have no evidence. Then it's nothing more than a story, a narrative, based upon their perception and their perspective of their experiences. That's fine in an echo chamber, all reinforcing each others beliefs of their shared experiences, but it's when that narrative is presented to the world outside the echo chamber, then all bets are off, as they are not entitled to be believed, by anyone.

Right if you wouldn’t view the experience of millions of women as evidence then I’m happy Enough with that. I find it so bizarre that I don’t feel the need to mount much of an argument. If a million people told me something happened to them I would definitely believe them. If you’re the kind of person that doesn’t that’s fine. At least I’m clear now as to what kind of person you are.

And the basis for why you think this about me is what exactly?

I'm not breaking your balls here, but how the hell did it go over your head the whole point of this conversation that you come out with a statement like that?

Actually I may be wrong about that. If you would not accept the experience of one million people then maybe you really are like that.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Do you think men by default are sexual predators? should we introduce laws against them?

No I don’t think men are by default sexual predators.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I don’t think men are by default sexual predators.

Do we have a societal problem then with all this metoo going around and what should we be doing about it?

RayCun

Deleted User wrote: »

Not so much about racism, since it's not really such an issue in Ireland.

Wow, no wonder you think sexism is a dead problem, solved twenty years ago.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Do we have a societal problem then with all this metoo going around and what should we be doing about it?

Metoo is something in itself. We basically have an actor saying metoo is having an effect on how he behaves around women. Metoo Is a part of the solution.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

Metoo is something in itself. We basically have an actor saying metoo is having an effect on how he behaves around women. Metoo Is a part of the solution.

Or part of a bigger problem, maybe we do need to get more puritan about things and more conservative about are thinking and how we act between the sexes.

I suppose it is only time that the likes of Hollywood and other places follow more traditional behavior in how we treat each other.

RayCun

Deleted User wrote: »

Edit: In fact, have a look at some of the false rape claims within this year... yup, proven to be false. But consider the lack of evidence involved, and yet, the claims still made it as far as a judge.

So when a woman presses charges and goes through the trauma of a court case, but the accused weren't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and weren't convicted, you describe this as "proven to be false" and "lack of evidence" and are evidently unhappy that it even went to court

Deleted User wrote: »

And the law is effectively dealing with that minority. Until the women of the metoo campaign come forward, and have their claims investigated then nothing will change. Making dramatic claims isn't going to help, because they haven't been verified.

But you still say that the law is dealing with rape effectively and criticise women for not coming forward. But also criticise them for making dramatic claims. And if they do come forward, but can't produce witnesses who were in the room and can testify that she didn't consent, or doesn't have medical evidence that she was beaten before being raped, you will call this lack of evidence and provably false.

I'm sure this is a happy and self-satisfied world you live in.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Firstly I think it’s an error to equate 1. questioning someone’s reason for believing/not believing a group of people with a common experience and 2. Questioning the common experiences of a group of people which you’re not a part of.

But for the sake of argument I’ll pretend these are the same thing:

You are free to question the experiences of these women. Nobody is stopping you.

However I’m highly suspect of someone who when faced with a huge number of reports of a common experience among a group that they’re not a part of responds with doubt.

Now me thinking you have dodgy reasons for that doubt does not prevent you from doing whatever you like.

There’s no question of entitlement here

The question of entitlement arises when people expect that other people should believe them when they recall an experience they claim happened to them, for no other reason other than their own belief that they are entitled to be believed.

Every woman I know has experienced the type of harassment that was brought up in metoo.

Well at least that provides a basis for your beliefs. They're based on prejudice towards automatically believing women when they claim they too have experiences to share with the group, or the movement in this case.

Except that I’ve never asked you to take my word. I’ve repeatedly said (is this the 4th time or 5th) that one of the things I find convincing is the sheer volume of metoo experiences. Not my word. Thousands and thousands of women’s word.

But whether I take your word for it or not goes to the very heart of what we're discussing here, and that is your belief that women when they recall their experiences of sexual harassment, assault, intimidation and rape, should be believed. You're willing to take the word of people who already agree with you, whereas because I disagree with your opinion, you question my character and motivation for doing so. The very thing you are condemning in other people, you're practicing it yourself.

This is why it's important for a system of justice to function that nobody should automatically be entitled to be believed over another person. Contrary to your earlier opinion based upon what I can only assume is something you haven't experienced, there are many people who are campaigning within the metoo movement to make it easier to convict people of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, by removing the ability from the defence to question the narrative of the alleged victim, and thereby do away with the accused right to a fair trial, the only means by which they maintain the presumption of innocence until they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Again no. It is based on the experiences of a huge number of women.

"Huge number" is a relative term. Care to put a percentage on that of the number of women who claim to have experienced sexual assault, intimidation, harassment and rape, expressed as a percentage of the total number of women in any given population? Otherwise terms like 'huge numbers' are meaningless.

Right if you wouldn’t view the experience of millions of women as evidence then I’m happy Enough with that. I find it so bizarre that I don’t feel the need to mount much of an argument. If a million people told me something happened to them I would definitely believe them. If you’re the kind of person that doesn’t that’s fine. At least I’m clear now as to what kind of person you are.

At least that explains why you haven't mounted much of an argument to support your opinion so far. The reason it matters as to what kind of people we are is that you want to convince me that I should take people at their word without question. I don't believe that I should. I think that's a terrible idea as it would lead to people being convicted of criminal offences without evidence, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims from people who find it bizarre that they should have to make an argument to convince people, rather than people automatically believing them. That's a sense of entitlement, to demand something of people to which you are not entitled.

Actually I may be wrong about that. If you would not accept the experience of one million people then maybe you really are like that.

Whatever you're trying to say, just come out and say it.

JP Liz V1

I'm guessing now no more promoting MI for him, I thought he was also back with Gina Carano

Agent Coulson

I always thought he was gay myself.

Old fashioned Hollywood straight for business reasons.


Much ado about nothing really people really want to be offended these days.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

So when a woman presses charges and goes through the trauma of a court case, but the accused weren't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and weren't convicted, you describe this as "proven to be false" and "lack of evidence" and are evidently unhappy that it even went to court

I'm not sure if you're aware that there is a difference between making a valid rape claim, and failing to prove it.... and making a false claim for other purposes, and being caught doing so.

But you still say that the law is dealing with rape effectively and criticise women for not coming forward.

I criticise women who contributed to the metoo campaign for not coming forward and having their claims investigated.

But also criticise them for making dramatic claims. And if they do come forward, but can't produce witnesses who were in the room and can testify that she didn't consent, or doesn't have medical evidence that she was beaten before being raped, you will call this lack of evidence and provably false.

That's not for me to say. That would be up to the Gardai and whatever methods they would employ given the situation.

Whereas... it's obvious that you would prefer women not to bother the Gardai with their claims and not seek to improve the system. Making vague statements to a Metoo campaign might raise some awareness, but people are already forgetting and moving on with their lives.

Submitting their cases, and their cases being investigated, means that their claims become official entries. Statistics. Statistics that can be used by anyone to present a real need for change in the system, and to provide constructive criticism to the Gardai. As opposed to your stance, which is to moan on the internet about how bad the system is, demanding change, but ultimately not contributing anything.

This is what annoys the hell out of me about the metoo supporters. They complain about the justice system but refuse to do the very things required for it to change!

I'm sure this is a happy and self-satisfied world you live in.

Naturally. I'm a single white male, and I'm privileged. :rolleyes:

RayCun wrote: »

Wow, no wonder you think sexism is a dead problem, solved twenty years ago.

Nope. Women have legal equality with men. Sexism by men against women, and sexism by women against men still exists in this country.

HandsomeBob

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes and for all of that there are cases where it was abused. Look at George Takei, i am not sure if he is actually an abuser or someone was trying to frame him.

I do have to say though i love the get out of trouble clause it did bring, with the Kevin Spacey incident.

Check out Takei's feed everytime he posts something. It really is horrific.

That's why I'd believe Cavill when he says he'd be apprehensive about approaching people. It doesn't take much these days to really damage someone's reputation/career and Takei is an illustration of that.

I mean you already have idiots on social media declaring Cavill to be "over", "done with", and "cancelled". :rolleyes:

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question of entitlement arises when people expect that other people should believe them when they recall an experience they claim happened to them, for no other reason other than their own belief that they are entitled to be believed.

I see no evidence that an individual recounting an experience as part of me too has expressed any more entitlement to belief than anyone else who recounts an experience.

Take any person posting any kind of experience on boards. What they did yesterday with their kids for example. Tell them to prove it or that you don’t buy it. They’ll probably be a bit confused as to why. I’d hardly call it an entitlement.

Now whether an individual expects themeselves to believed (I think we all do) is a different matter to whether the experiences of a group should be believed.

Well at least that provides a basis for your beliefs. They're based on prejudice towards automatically believing women when they claim they too have experiences to share with the group, or the movement in this case.

It depends on the experience. If a woman claimed men regularly did the Macarena in front of her I’d probably question her. If she said she was regularly groped or catcalled I would believe her.

The belief is not automatic. The belief is there because the experience is so widespread.

But whether I take your word for it or not goes to the very heart of what we're discussing here, and that is your belief that women when they recall their experiences of sexual harassment, assault, intimidation and rape, should be believed. You're willing to take the word of people who already agree with you, whereas because I disagree with your opinion, you question my character and motivation for doing so. The very thing you are condemning in other people, you're practicing it yourself.

My word has nothing to do with it. I’m not recounting experiences. I’m arguing that women should be believed. Where does my word come into it. And I have not called into question your character. I think the only thing I’ve said is that you are the kind of person who would not believe a common experience of a million people. I’m not sure what that has to do with your character.

This is why it's important for a system of justice to function that nobody should automatically be entitled to be believed over another person. Contrary to your earlier opinion based upon what I can only assume is something you haven't experienced, there are many people who are campaigning within the metoo movement to make it easier to convict people of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation and rape, by removing the ability from the defence to question the narrative of the alleged victim, and thereby do away with the accused right to a fair trial, the only means by which they maintain the presumption of innocence until they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I personally haven’t seen anything from metoo about not being allowed to question a victims narrative. Are you referring to the post trial reaction to the paddy Jackson trial that had nothing to do with metoo?

At least that explains why you haven't mounted much of an argument to support your opinion so far. The reason it matters as to what kind of people we are is that you want to convince me that I should take people at their word without question. I don't believe that I should. I think that's a terrible idea as it would lead to people being convicted of criminal offences without evidence, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims from people who find it bizarre that they should have to make an argument to convince people, rather than people automatically believing them. That's a sense of entitlement, to demand something of people to which you are not entitled.

No you can believe the stories of women without convicting anyone.

Again, the vast majority of metoo stories did not name anyone.

An incredibly tiny minority of metoo stories resulted in any kind of legal action.

Whatever you're trying to say, just come out and say it.

I have.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I see no evidence that an individual recounting an experience as part of me too has expressed any more entitlement to belief than anyone else who recounts an experience.

Take any person posting any kind of experience on boards. What they did yesterday with their kids for example. Tell them to prove it or that you don’t buy it. They’ll probably be a bit confused as to why. I’d hardly call it an entitlement.

Now whether an individual expects themeselves to believed (I think we all do) is a different matter to whether the experiences of a group should be believed.

I'm not arguing that anyone has actually expressed any more of an entitlement to be believed than anyone else. We're talking specifically about women who claim to have experienced harassment, intimidation, sexual assault and rape, so let's just stick with that context.

It depends on the experience. If a woman claimed men regularly did the Macarena in front of her I’d probably question her. If she said she was regularly groped or catcalled I would believe her.

Again, let's just stick with the context of what we're talking about here. You say you would believe a woman if she said she was regularly groped or catcalled, and I'm suggesting that the basis for that belief is because you want to believe her. She has not provided you with any evidence for her claims. You simply believe her on the basis that every woman you've met previously has made similar claims without evidence.

The belief is not automatic. The belief is there because the experience is so widespread.

How is the belief not automatic when it is based on the underlying belief that it is so widespread, a belief which is itself supported by others who claim to have had experiences which you believe happened to them? You're using circular logic to justify your belief in the first place, which leads you to believe women without questioning or requiring any evidence for their claims.

My word has nothing to do with it. I’m not recounting experiences. I’m arguing that women should be believed. Where does my word come into it. And I have not called into question your character. I think the only thing I’ve said is that you are the kind of person who would not believe a common experience of a million people. I’m not sure what that has to do with your character.

Your word comes into it when you claim that every woman you've ever met has experienced some form of sexual misconduct by men. You make that claim on the basis that their claims support your belief that sexual misconduct among men towards women is widespread.

Saying I am any kind of a person is making a claim about my character. Claims for which you have no evidence, and because you have no evidence, at least you acknowledge that you may be wrong. This makes the point of your original claim, pointless. It's similar to the way in which the women you have spoken to have made claims, which are pointless without evidence. Your choosing to believe their claims in the absence of evidence is based solely upon your own prejudice which has been reinforced by the number of women who have made such claims to you, without evidence. Therefore the only rational conclusion one can draw from that is that you believe those women for no other reason than you choose to believe them.

I personally haven’t seen anything from metoo about not being allowed to question a victims narrative. Are you referring to the post trial reaction to the paddy Jackson trial that had nothing to do with metoo?

For someone making claims as to what the metoo movement was about, you're fairly ignorant of many aspects of it all the same. One of the main themes of the movement and one of it's main motivations for it's whole purpose was to highlight the fact that women who claim to have experienced sexual misconduct against them by men, are not believed, and the metoo movement was intended as a show of support for those women, and to a lesser degree, men. It was to show how prevalent the issue is, precisely because they felt that they are not believed. The trial of Paddy Jackson and co was but a mere blip on the global radar of the metoo movement as a whole, and so I wasn't referring to that trial, but to the motivation for the metoo movement as a whole.

No you can believe the stories of women without convicting anyone.

Again, the vast majority of metoo stories did not name anyone.

An incredibly tiny minority of metoo stories resulted in any kind of legal action.

Of course you can. That wasn't my point though. My point was that in order for the accused to receive a fair trial, as is their right, then we must not simply believe the stories of women.

You can of course believe what you choose to believe as an individual, but that bias and prejudice has no place in a Court of Law. If you are already of the belief that you should believe someone on the basis that you've heard many similar stories of others experiences, then that prejudice informs your opinion before you've even been presented with the evidence.

I have.

You haven't been straight at all to be honest. If anything you've made any sort of an attempt at discussion incredibly frustrating as you've tried to insinuate that I am somehow of questionable character on the basis that I disagree with your opinion. I really don't like that sort of behavior.

JohnMc1

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Check out Takei's feed everytime he posts something. It really is horrific.

That's why I'd believe Cavill when he says he'd be apprehensive about approaching people. It doesn't take much these days to really damage someone's reputation/career and Takei is an illustration of that.

I mean you already have idiots on social media declaring Cavill to be "over", "done with", and "cancelled". :rolleyes:

Hard to feel sorry for Takai when he constantly panders to groups like this.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not arguing that anyone has actually expressed any more of an entitlement to be believed than anyone else. We're talking specifically about women who claim to have experienced harassment, intimidation, sexual assault and rape, so let's just stick with that context.

You’ve conflated the average persons normal expectation of not being thought of as a liar when they recount an experience with a movement having a sense of entitlement. I’m pointing out that the movement has no sense of entitlement. That the credibility of the movement does not come solely from “entitlement”. That is wholly relevant and I will continue to raise and discuss it.

Again, let's just stick with the context of what we're talking about here. You say you would believe a woman if she said she was regularly groped or catcalled, and I'm suggesting that the basis for that belief is because you want to believe her. She has not provided you with any evidence for her claims. You simply believe her on the basis that every woman you've met previously has made similar claims without evidence.

As I’ve said I’ve also witnessed the behaviour a lot. And in terms of the women I know they don’t tend to lie. And many of the women who I’ve discussed this with were clearly not part of an agenda, who don’t really care about metoo and only mentioned the harassment because I’ve asked them about it. This all adds to credibility.

I 100% reject your notion that belief is based on “wanting to believe”. Belief is based on credibility. And metoo is a very credible movement.

I know a guy who really does not want to believe the experiences of metoo. When I first talked to him about it he thought there was no way women got harassed that much. I read him some of the experiences. He was shocked but still doubtful. Then he asked his girlfriend (who has never expressed any leanings towards the metoo movement). She told him the harassment she received and continues to receive. Now he fully believes even though he’d rather not. Why? Credibility. Not “want”.

BTW the latest incident was her being chatted up at 2am in a fast food joint by a guy. She ignored him. After a while she left and hailed a taxi. As she was getting in the guy from the fast food joint appeared behind her and tried to get In also. He ended up pushing her in and getting in himself before the taxi driver turned him out.

How is the belief not automatic when it is based on the underlying belief that it is so widespread, a belief which is itself supported by others who claim to have had experiences which you believe happened to them? You're using circular logic to justify your belief in the first place, which leads you to believe women without questioning or requiring any evidence for their claims.

Because It would only be automatic if I believed anything any woman ever said. Once I have a criteria for belief such as a huge number of people sharing similar experiences then it’s no longer automatic. There’s a basic criteria.

Your word comes into it when you claim that every woman you've ever met has experienced some form of sexual misconduct by men. You make that claim on the basis that their claims support your belief that sexual misconduct among men towards women is widespread.

Again I do not make the claims based on my belief. I make the claims based on a number of things. Personally witnessing harassment, the experiences of women known to me, and the incredible number of experiences recounted in metoo.

Saying I am any kind of a person is making a claim about my character. Claims for which you have no evidence, and because you have no evidence, at least you acknowledge that you may be wrong. This makes the point of your original claim, pointless. It's similar to the way in which the women you have spoken to have made claims, which are pointless without evidence. Your choosing to believe their claims in the absence of evidence is based solely upon your own prejudice which has been reinforced by the number of women who have made such claims to you, without evidence. Therefore the only rational conclusion one can draw from that is that you believe those women for no other reason than you choose to believe them.

Making a claim about your character would usually be something quite general. I said you’re the kind of person who would question the shared experience of 1 million people. I don’t see any slur there. You literally said it. And I do have evidence for that. You said it.

For someone making claims as to what the metoo movement was about, you're fairly ignorant of many aspects of it all the same. One of the main themes of the movement and one of it's main motivations for it's whole purpose was to highlight the fact that women who claim to have experienced sexual misconduct against them by men, are not believed, and the metoo movement was intended as a show of support for those women, and to a lesser degree, men. It was to show how prevalent the issue is, precisely because they felt that they are not believed. The trial of Paddy Jackson and co was but a mere blip on the global radar of the metoo movement as a whole, and so I wasn't referring to that trial, but to the motivation for the metoo movement as a whole.

Can you point to someone campaigning for changes to trial law under the label of metoo? I’ve only seen any discussion of this in relation to the PJ case. And the PJ case had NOTHING to do with metoo. The accusation was made spontaneously the following day, which was long before metoo started.

Of course you can. That wasn't my point though. My point was that in order for the accused to receive a fair trial, as is their right, then we must not simply believe the stories of women.

You can of course believe what you choose to believe as an individual, but that bias and prejudice has no place in a Court of Law. If you are already of the belief that you should believe someone on the basis that you've heard many similar stories of others experiences, then that prejudice informs your opinion before you've even been presented with the evidence.

I agree to an extent. In a court of law more evidence is required. As I’ve said from the start metoo has incredibly little to do with legal prosecutions.

Though I think it’s quite naive to think that credibility and belief are not major players in court cases. Convictions can and do happen based on credibility.

You can be taken to court and prosecuted for dangerous driving based on the word of one witness, with no supporting physical evidence.

You haven't been straight at all to be honest. If anything you've made any sort of an attempt at discussion incredibly frustrating as you've tried to insinuate that I am somehow of questionable character on the basis that I disagree with your opinion. I really don't like that sort of behavior.

I find you frustrating too. And I haven’t said you’re of questionable character. All I’ve said is that you’re the kind of person who would doubt the experience of a million people. Was I wrong?

ginandtonicsky

Fcuking hell One Eyed Jack the multi-quoting marathons are a bit bloody tiresome to say the least. Does each and every paragraph have to be quoted and responded to, or might it be advisable for everyone’s sake to take a chill and head out into the sun for a break?

ginandtonicsky

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

Fcuking hell One Eyed Jack the multi-quoting marathons are a bit bloody tiresome to say the least. Does each and every paragraph have to be quoted and responded to, or might it be advisable for everyone’s sake to take a chill and head out into the sun for a break?

Don't like it, don't read it. Some of us quite enjoy reading long posts that are well organised/written. Strange that you picked One Eyed Jack, since LLMMLL was the last one with a large post. Still... can't see what the problem is. Just skim it. (and it's raining here)

MonsterCookie

Jaysus. This thread has gone the way of so many others. The debate has long gone off topic and is being waged with polarized arguments that are not compatible with each other I.e

- one side says why not believe women on the basis that so many say they’ve been victims. The sheer volume of women coming forward via metoo means there’s a major problem.

- The other side says that in the absence of due process, individual claims by women cannot be verified and therefore invidual men who have been accused should be innocent until proven guilty.

Are both of these not reasonable positions? What am I missing ?

MonsterCookie

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Jaysus. This thread has gone the way of so many others. The debate has long gone off topic and is being waged with polarized arguments that are not compatible with each other I.e

- one side says why not believe women on the basis that so many say they’ve been victims. The sheer volume of women coming forward via metoo means there’s a major problem.

- The other side says that in the absence of due process, individual claims by women cannot be verified and therefore invidual men who have been accused should be innocent until proven guilty.

Are both of these not reasonable positions? What am I missing ?

I’d rather want the victims go to the guards and report it and not run off to social media for brownie points /are u ok hun messages

MonsterCookie

Willow Creamy Frisbee wrote: »

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Jaysus. This thread has gone the way of so many others. The debate has long gone off topic and is being waged with polarized arguments that are not compatible with each other I.e

- one side says why not believe women on the basis that so many say they’ve been victims. The sheer volume of women coming forward via metoo means there’s a major problem.

- The other side says that in the absence of due process, individual claims by women cannot be verified and therefore invidual men who have been accused should be innocent until proven guilty.

Are both of these not reasonable positions? What am I missing ?

I’d rather want the victims go to the guards and report it and not run off to social media for brownie points /are u ok hun messages

Yes. Metoo, excuse the pun. By far the best way to deal with any crime.

And I assume there’s a fair amount of bull**** and embellishment associated with metoo as well.

But I think it’s a mistake to dismiss it entirely - even if half the claims are garbage.

AudreyHepburn

DONTMATTER wrote: »

The amount of women who've been sexually assaulted in Ireland is pretty sickening. The metoo movement exposed this didn't it? Women came forward.

And that’s all well and good but it’s gotten to a point where men are being denied their voices in the discussion and I don’t think anyone with a modicum of sense thinks that’s a good idea.

We can’t expect men to stay silent in the discussion - it affects them as much as us.

DONTMATTER

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And that’s all well and good but it’s gotten to a point where men are being denied their voices in the discussion and I don’t think anyone with a modicum of sense thinks that’s a good idea.

We can’t expect men to stay silent in the discussion - it affects them as much as us.

How are men being denied anything? It's rapists and those who assault women who are being attacked. Is that not a good thing?

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

How are men being denied anything? It's rapists and those who assault women who are being attacked. Is that not a good thing?

For every woman you expect us to automatically believe, there's a man you expect us to automatically disbelieve.

DONTMATTER

Rennaws wrote: »

For every woman you expect us to automatically believe, there's a man you expect us to automatically disbelieve.

Do you think all the women who have came forward with their stories are lying?

AudreyHepburn

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Do you think all the women who have came forward with their stories are lying?

Of course not but we can’t just take them all at their word either.

AudreyHepburn

DONTMATTER wrote: »

How are men being denied anything? It's rapists and those who assault women who are being attacked. Is that not a good thing?

It’s a great thing but when a man is compelled to apologize for speaking the truth then the original point of the whole thing is being lost.

DONTMATTER

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course not but we can’t just take them all at their word either.

We'll say out of the thousands of women maybe 100 are lying. We've still got a huge number of cases where women have been assaulted, raped, harassed, it's disgusting and it's not right, is it?

DONTMATTER

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s a great thing but when a man is compelled to apologize for speaking the truth then the original point of the whole thing is being lost.

A man having to apologise is a tiny thing compared to women getting raped, abused and harassed no?

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Do you think all the women who have came forward with their stories are lying?

It's the internet. It's full of crazies and weirdos who can claim anything they want with zero evidence to substantiate their claims.

I don't trust anything or anyone unless I know them personally.

If someone feels that they've been assaulted or raped then they should report it.

Social media is not the place for that.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

For every woman you expect us to automatically believe, there's a man you expect us to automatically disbelieve.

Um no there’s not.

The vast vast majority of metoo posts did not name anyone. They were of the “last week I was sitting on a bus and a guy started masturbating in front of me” type posts. There is no man that is being disbelieved in these cases.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

Um no there’s not.

The vast vast majority of metoo posts did not name anyone. They were of the “last week I was sitting on a bus and a guy started masturbating in front of me” type posts. There is no man that is being disbelieved in these cases.

If there's a guy **** on a bus notify the driver and call the guards..

Whinging about it on twitter is not how law and order works in this country..

Mokuba

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We'll say out of the thousands of women maybe 100 are lying. We've still got a huge number of cases where women have been assaulted, raped, harassed, it's disgusting and it's not right, is it?

How did you work out how many are lying?

Did you ask them? Did you just pick a random number out of the sky?

Embarrassing tripe.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

If there's a guy **** on a bus notify the driver and call the guards..

Whinging about it on twitter is not how law and order works in this country..

There are other avenues of change apart from law and order.

Either way no man is being disbelieved.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

There are other avenues of change apart from law and order.

Such as ? How else are we going to start dealing with these rapists ?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Either way no man is being disbelieved.

If no man is being disbelieved then what’s the problem ?

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

Such as ? How else are we going to start dealing with these rapists ?

Who said anything about rapists? Metoo covers a wide range of behaviour.

Metoo promotes an awareness, a cultural change. It encourages people to speak out against ****ty behaviour.

If no man is being disbelieved then what’s the problem ?

I have no idea. You’re the one who said that for every woman who is believed there’s a man who is not believed.

AudreyHepburn

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We'll say out of the thousands of women maybe 100 are lying. We've still got a huge number of cases where women have been assaulted, raped, harassed, it's disgusting and it's not right, is it?

Where or when did I ever say that it’s right? You’re missing the point completely to be honest.

No it’s not right that women, or anyone for that matter, she be harassed/assaulted but it’s also not right that men should feel afraid to approach us for fear being falsely accused.

There are two sides to this debate and the make side is being being silenced- that’s not right either.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

Who said anything about rapists? Metoo covers a wide range of behaviour.

It does. It also targets sexual assault and harassment.

We have laws to protect citizens from all of the above.

But you said there are other avenues of change apart from law and order..

I asked you what they are..

So what are they ?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Metoo promotes an awareness, a cultural change. It encourages people to speak out against ****ty behaviour.

I see you've downgraded it now to just sh1tty behaviour.

That's convenient given where our discussion is headed..

Is this downgrade the official line or just yours ?

Or is this all just driven by some anonymous mindless mob mentality on the internet..

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have no idea. You’re the one who said that for every woman who is believed there’s a man who is not believed.

Well this is the problem for me. If there's no man, there's no crime. It's just some anonymous stranger waffling on the internet. I have no idea nor interest whether they're telling the truth or not because it can never be backed up or corroborated.

Come up with an accused, an accuser and an accusation and you've got yourself something we can talk about.

After the trial of course

Galwayguy35

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We'll say out of the thousands of women maybe 100 are lying. We've still got a huge number of cases where women have been assaulted, raped, harassed, it's disgusting and it's not right, is it?

No it's not right but it also makes it more difficult for real victims when liars try to ruin a mans life by accusing him of rape.

DONTMATTER

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where or when did I ever say that it’s right? You’re missing the point completely to be honest.

No it’s not right that women, or anyone for that matter, she be harassed/assaulted but it’s also not right that men should feel afraid to approach us for fear being falsely accused.

There are two sides to this debate and the make side is being being silenced- that’s not right either.

I didn't say you said that.

The only sides to this debate is those being raped/assaulted v those who rape/assault. Why are men getting offended by that?
Shouldn't they be be getting on board the movement as men get raped and assaulted by other men too!
It should be everyone against the rapists and abusers but for some reason some men are seeing attacks on depraved men as being an attack on all men. It's very weird.

DONTMATTER

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No it's not right but it also makes it more difficult for real victims when liars try to ruin a mans life by accusing him of rape.

No, so if we make rape and sexual assault less likely to happen then it will be more difficult for false rape claims to happen. False rape claims don't happen very often anyway but they're only possible because of the huge amount of rape cases.

MonsterCookie

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No it's not right but it also makes it more difficult for real victims when liars try to ruin a mans life by accusing him of rape.

No, so if we make rape and sexual assault less likely to happen then it will be more difficult for false rape claims to happen. False rape claims don't happen very often anyway but they're only possible because of the huge amount of rape cases.

How are you so sure that false claims are rare?

DONTMATTER

MonsterCookie wrote: »

How are you so sure that false claims are rare?

Because they are.

DONTMATTER

DONTMATTER wrote: »

No, so if we make rape and sexual assault less likely to happen then it will be more difficult for false rape claims to happen. False rape claims don't happen very often anyway but they're only possible because of the huge amount of rape cases.

What huge amount of rape cases? Perhaps compare the amount of Rape in Ireland vs the US, taking into account the population difference... Hell, compare the amount of rape in Belgium vs Ireland. Similar populations. I'd still be interested in you proving this "huge" amount of rape...

And false rape claims are independent of actual rape claims. Unless you can prove that they're connected?

DONTMATTER

Deleted User wrote: »

What huge amount of rape cases? Perhaps compare the amount of Rape in Ireland vs the US, taking into account the population difference... Hell, compare the amount of rape in Belgium vs Ireland. Similar populations. I'd still be interested in you proving this "huge" amount of rape...

And false rape claims are independent of actual rape claims. Unless you can prove that they're connected?

The metoo campaign is a worldwide one no? Here's some Irish figures:

http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-stats-rise-ireland-3929262-Mar2018/

False rape claims will be far less likely to happen if rape was a rare crime. Simple common sense will tell you that.

MonsterCookie

DONTMATTER wrote: »

MonsterCookie wrote: »

How are you so sure that false claims are rare?

Because they are.

Ok! And you wonder why not everyone agrees with you.

I was hoping for something a little more evidence based.

FYI the rate of conviction for rape in this country is quite good - for those cases that go to trial that is.

It’s the cases that don’t go to trial that are very difficult to draw conclusions from. I guess for those that are reported, it’s poor evidence and poor chance of conviction that holds them back.

DONTMATTER

DONTMATTER wrote: »

The metoo campaign is a worldwide one no? Here's some Irish figures:

http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-stats-rise-ireland-3929262-Mar2018/

False rape claims will be far less likely to happen if rape was a rare crime. Simple common sense will tell you that.

Simple common sense will tell you that false rape claims and actual rape claims are separate issues...

And your link is about the rise in rape during that period... not a justification for your claim of huge amount of rape happening.