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
#ibelieveher part II
Options
Comments
-
Looks like the metoo movement is predictably descending into some distasteful catfighting amongst its leaders....
Just like what the BBC, The Guardian, The UK Labour party has experienced....
Aren't feminists great all the same....is there any dedicated news channel out there where we can watch the feminist sh#t show live....0 -
I believe her when you consider the wider factors
She had a difficult family life and was estranged from large parts of her family, so at the time she might not have had family looking for her.
She was in a relationship at the time with a famous sportsman who has a proven violent history who must be the prime candidate for this scenario
Around this time he moved to a French team which could explain the foreign travel- trials for teams etc or meetings with potential teams etc
Very easy to get there from the UK in a car on the Eurostar or via light plane from UK (at the time both would have easily had the means to afford a flight)
Even the ferry was an option, plenty of ways to avoid a commercial flight is so wished
As for the label? She split with her management in 2010- easily could have been manipulated to do so by an abusive partner or maybe they found her unreliable at the time due to the issues in her life and dropped her?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/duffy-turns-back-record-company-1942445.amp
The timeline may not be perfect but I’ll put that down to GHB or some other drug being used to control her.0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Looks like the metoo movement is predictably descending into some distasteful catfighting amongst its leaders....
Just like what the BBC, The Guardian, The UK Labour party has experienced....
Aren't feminists great all the same....is there any dedicated news channel out there where we can watch the feminist sh#t show live....
The way you describe them, they don’t sound very effective and not much to worry about. Now try telling that to all the posters who get so upset about them. But they have no problem seeing them as both the biggest threat to society and the an ineffective rabble.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »The way you describe them, they don’t sound very effective and not much to worry about. Now try telling that to all the posters who get so upset about them. But they have no problem seeing them as both the biggest threat to society and the an ineffective rabble.
They are a huge threat to whatever entity/industry facilitates them....which is many in this day and age.
Look at the state of both the UK Labour Party and The Lib Dems, The BBC....the fact that gender quotas exists demonstrates how effective they can be a creating undeserved opportunity for themselves....what is happening now is the consequences of allowing undeserved individuals positions of influence.
Just because someone thinks they are empowered doesn't mean they aren't talentless.0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »They are a huge threat to whatever entity/industry facilitates them....which is many in this day and age.
Look at the state of both the UK Labour Party and The Lib Dems, The BBC....the fact that gender quotas exists demonstrates how effective they can be a creating undeserved opportunity for themselves....what is happening now is the consequences of allowing undeserved individuals positions of influence.
Just because someone thinks they are empowered doesn't mean they aren't talentless.
And there's a third angle. They're a threat to anyone who facilitates them.
They’re all things to all men. They ultimate boogeywomem.0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »And there's a third angle. They're a threat to anyone who facilitates them.
They’re all things to all men. They ultimate boogeywomem.
What are you on about....
Feminists are destroying political parties...they have achieved this through gender quotas...
There are consequences to facilitating talentless people in important positions...
I mentioned a number of entities that all have been damaged by facilitating them...
Or are we not supposed to talk about it!!!0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »And there's a third angle. They're a threat to anyone who facilitates them.
They’re all things to all men. They ultimate boogeywomem.
Take the metoo movement, top to bottom feminists...and it is imploding in catfights....and the movement damaged a lot of innocent men0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Looks like the metoo movement is predictably descending into some distasteful catfighting amongst its leaders....
To be fair I'd have some respect for Rose Mc Gowan, she seems at least to believe what she says. Alyssa Milano and Asia Argento seem to be hypocrites just trying to futher their careers.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I can. It’s no different to your suggestion that they shouldn’t. The whole point of a jury trial is that the accused is tried by a jury of their peers - ordinary members of the public, with all their own prejudices and biases. Of course one can ask them to put their prejudices aside and judge the accused in each case on the basis of the evidence before them, but that’s an idealistic notion rather than anything grounded in reality.
There’s a strong whiff of post truth about this comment. Jurors can in fact be excluded for bias or prejudice. It is by no means taken for granted that they will be biased.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Same question to you "Based on what Duffy said, do you think she is telling the truth or not?"
I do have sympath for her and I do think something probably did happen to her, but to be honest I'm doubtful things went down exactly the way she describes.
I'm not calling her a liar by the way. When you go through something traumatic or are suffering from a mental illness (or both), it's easy to get things confused.0 -
Advertisement
-
Silentcorner wrote: »What are you on about....
Feminists are destroying political parties...they have achieved this through gender quotas...
There are consequences to facilitating talentless people in important positions...
I mentioned a number of entities that all have been damaged by facilitating them...
Or are we not supposed to talk about it!!!
I didn't suggest you shouldn't talk about it. Where did you get that from?
I'm amused at the way they're represented as so many contradictory things at once. Some thing they're dysfunctional an ineffective, laughable, others think they're Harmful to the groups that embrace them, others think they're so effective, they're the biggest threat to society. Those are all opinions I've read on the same threads discussing the feminists but those people with such differing opinions never seem to see each other as being in disagreement - as long as they're giving out about the feminists, they're in the right.
People will look at the #metoo movement, this huge global phenomenon, and attribute it to feminists and still call them ineffective. Ah look, as long as you enjoy your hobby horse, that's the main thing.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »I do have sympath for her and I do think something probably did happen to her, but to be honest I'm doubtful things went down exactly the way she describes.
I'm not calling her a liar by the way. When you go through something traumatic or are suffering from a mental illness (or both), it's easy to get things confused.
That's right in terms of what the "truth" means and whether it includes things that could be both inaccurate and correct as far as one knows. I didn't even want to get in to that part because it's an unnecessary confusion to the issue.
But why would you believe the overarching theme that something traumatic happened to her, just not the thing she's saying happened? Like, on what do you base that assessment? If you have the same evidence as me, then i think it's fair to say that my standard of evidence is quite a bit higher than yours.
I can honestly say I don't have a clue one way or the other because I don't have enough evidence to know. I could pretend to know, but i won't because the honest thing to do is acknowledge that i read a story and i have no way to test whether it's accurate or not. I definitely don't believe it just because someone said it, my standard of evidence is higher than a mere single account of an event.0 -
boring accountant wrote: »There’s a strong whiff of post truth about this comment. Jurors can in fact be excluded for bias or prejudice. It is by no means taken for granted that they will be biased.
Nobody was suggesting that jurors can not be excluded for bias or prejudice. You must have read the post I was responding to which suggested that with nutjobs like #believeher advocates in society, it would make you wonder if rape trials should be conducted by a special criminal court style panel rather than a jury. The poster may not have realised that’s exactly what some nutjobs they object to are proposing -
Juries have no place in rape trials. They simply can’t be trusted
Neither ‘side’ as it were, has any trust that a jury will come to ‘the correct decision’, the one that the person calling for trials without juries agrees with at least, and so they argue that justice would be best served if there were no jury, because the assumption is of course that juries are biased against their point of view when the outcome of a trial isn’t to their liking.
It absolutely is taken for granted that jurors will be biased. The irony is that’s a bias in itself - people make assumptions about other people ALL the time, and when it comes to #believeher types, they assume that they are representative of all women, and one of their arguments is that male dominated juries are the reason why the conviction rate for rape is as low as it is.
Ongoing research into jury bias in rape trials however, does not support that assumption -
Rape study shows female dominated juries don’t convict
MEN standing trial for rape stand a far greater chance of walking free if they appear before a jury dominated by women.
A six-year study on the outcome of sex crimes in the Central Criminal Court found female-dominated juries failed to convict a single person of rape. By contrast, jury panels with a majority of men found one in every four defendants guilty.
...
“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.
The study only looked at convictions of rape and left aside details of lesser charges the accused may have faced — such as assault or kidnap.
Now, granted, those are the preliminary findings of just one study conducted ten years ago, but like I said, ongoing research continues to contradict assumptions made about jurors biases and prejudices in rape trials. The latest effort the #believeher crowd have latched on to are “rape myths”, which they claim are the cause of the low conviction rate. It could never simply be of course that the reason why #believeher advocates are so pissed about the low conviction rates for rape is because they simply don’t care for evidence - they believe a person who claims to have been raped simply because they want to, not because they have examined any evidence. That’s why the Courts don’t take their nonsense seriously, and nobody else can be obligated to take them seriously either.
It’s also the reason why I wouldn’t take anyone calling for a person to be excluded from serving on a jury on the basis of their own assumptions about that person or group of people, seriously - because people are biased in all sorts of contradictory ways, and just because they are either a man or a woman is no reason to argue that they should be excluded from serving on a jury because they’re more likely to be biased one way or the other already about whether the defendant is automatically guilty or the alleged victim is a #believeher advocate, and how that might influence their interpretation of the evidence and their subsequent deliberations.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »But why would you believe the overarching theme that something traumatic happened to her, just not the thing she's saying happened? Like, on what do you base that assessment?
Do I believe she was raped? I'm still a little on the fence a bit. Ah feck it, I'll get off the fence and say yes, she probably was raped. Does that count as the traumatic event I was talking about earlier? Like you though, I just don't know 100%. I'd find it easier to believe that she was raped if her story wasn't so implausible.
Duffy seems a little fcuked up, mentally. I'm not a doctor so I can't diagnose mental illness but it's strange the way she let the story out, the details of which are sketchy and, while not impossible, are difficult for me to believe 100%.I definitely don't believe it just because someone said it, my standard of evidence is higher than a mere single account of an event.
We are a little similar here I think.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Do I believe she was raped? I'm still a little on the fence a bit. Ah feck it, I'll get off the fence and say yes, she probably was raped. Does that count as the traumatic event I was talking about earlier? Like you though, I just don't know 100%. I'd find it easier to believe that she was raped if her story wasn't so implausible.
Duffy seems a little fcuked up, mentally. I'm not a doctor so I can't diagnose mental illness but it's strange the way she let the story out, the details of which are sketchy and, while not impossible, are difficult for me to believe 100%.
We are a little similar here I think.
forget 100%. we never know anything with 100% certainty. Like, how did you even decide that you believe she was raped? Her story is extraordinary but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened and with no more information than we have, how can we claim to know anything about it? I know she made a claim, and that's all I know.
You're not a doctor but you're diagnosing her as being fcuked up mentally. On what do you base that assessment? Serious question, what leads you to think she's fcuked up mentally?
As for letting the story out the way she did, I would have to know more about celebrity circumstance because they aren't really comparable to you or m. If we have a traumatic event we can go to the police, tell family or friends and it can stay pretty close to home and within the community. A celebrity can't simply tell a few people and expect it to stay close to home. Celebrity gossip can be bought and sold. Photographers camped outside her house looking for a picture of her going to the shop for milk, catching a picture of her looking p1ssed off by the intrusion of privacy and then inventing headline that she's "on the edge".
It's perfectly possible that she simply broke the story to reduce the tabloid's incentive to badger her to death for the story.
Serious question, how should she have broken the news to the public given that it was almost certain to get out if she told almost anyone?
Also, what leads you to think she's fcuked up mentally?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Like, how did you even decide that you believe she was raped? Her story is extraordinary but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened and with no more information than we have, how can we claim to know anything about it?
She made a claim, that's all I have to go on, same as you. I've no proof that she was or wasn't raped. I reckon most people don't lie about rape so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on her claim that she was raped. Now, if she came out and said El_Duderino raped me, then I'd be asking her for a bit more proof before I decided to hang, draw and quarter you. My issue is with the story surrounding the rape. She said the following:
She was abducted and taken away from a restaurant on her birthday.......You'd be the centre of attention on your birthday and it would be pretty hard to abduct someone away from a public place on your birthday.
Drugged and taken to a foreign country..........Possible. Not the norm because if you wanted to rape someone, there are easier ways to do it than taking the chance of bringing someone drugged abroad.
Brought to a hotel room in a foreign country........again risky.
She said she had to walk behind him..........which leads me to believe they were out and about in the foreign country..............again, is it normal to bring a kidnap victim out and about?
Kept prisoner for four weeks in her home and drugged.......maybe.
Says she wasn't drugged overseas, yet the person was able to exert control over her.........strange.
Also, there is a lack of details too which is strange. What country etc.? What you did afterwards etc. Where she went for help etc. Granted I have no right to know but when you tell a story, tell it properly so that there is no room for ambiguity.
Duffy said she told a police woman ' because someone threatened to out her story' yet we hear nothing of any further action.
Duffy also says that she retreated from the public eye after she was "raped, drugged and held captive" for several days........and then she says she was held captive for a month, which is significantly longer than several days.
When the story surrounding the rape is sketchy, it raises the credibility of everything she says, including the rape allegation.You're not a doctor but you're diagnosing her as being fcuked up mentally. On what do you base that assessment? Serious question, what leads you to think she's fcuked up mentally?
Just a hunch. Her garbled mess of a story etc.
By the way, if she was raped, it's possible she is traumatised by this it probably would have affected her mentally.
And if her rape story isn't true, she's certainly down the road of mental illness...............or being a pure bad person for making up sh1t like this.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »She made a claim, that's all I have to go on, same as you. I've no proof that she was or wasn't raped. I reckon most people don't lie about rape so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on her claim that she was raped. Now, if she came out and said El_Duderino raped me, then I'd be asking her for a bit more proof before I decided to hang, draw and quarter you. My issue is with the story surrounding the rape. She said the following:
...
Also, there is a lack of details too which is strange. What country etc.? What you did afterwards etc. Where she went for help etc. Granted I have no right to know but when you tell a story, tell it properly so that there is no room for ambiguity.
Duffy said she told a police woman ' because someone threatened to out her story' yet we hear nothing of any further action.
Duffy also says that she retreated from the public eye after she was "raped, drugged and held captive" for several days........and then she says she was held captive for a month, which is significantly longer than several days.
When the story surrounding the rape is sketchy, it raises the credibility of everything she says, including the rape allegation.
Just a hunch. Her garbled mess of a story etc.
By the way, if she was raped, it's possible she is traumatised by this it probably would have affected her mentally.
And if her rape story isn't true, she's certainly down the road of mental illness...............or being a pure bad person for making up sh1t like this.
Yeah, If someone accused you of rape (she hasn't accused any individual of rape) then I'd show the same scepticism along the lines of "that's a serious claim, now it needs to be investigated to find out if its true". I'm not in a position to investigate it, so I just accept that I don't know and probably will never know.
The things you picked as holes in the story are unusual alright. But I think I'd want to hear from an actual expert in these experiences. Power and exertion of control over people is a fascinating phenomenon. It's like when Kanye West said black slaves could have just risen up at any time so why didn't they unless they were complicit in the whole thing.
So you might say she could have just run or said something, but people are trafficked and enslaved and brought through airports in modern times. You might think you've cracked the case, but I'd ask you how much you know about rape and human trafficking and trauma and the psychology of someone experiencing those things.
If you know naff all about human trafficking (like me), then doesn't that significantly weaken your case? And does that have any impact on the conclusions you've reached?
I strongly suspect that people started with the conclusion that she made it up and the fact that they don't have a clue whether it happened or not, is having little or no effect on their conclusion.
Likewise the diagnosis of mental illness. It's based on the conclusion that she's hallucinated, made up, imagined or lied and come out with this story for attention. It's a really clear case of the conclusion coming first and any old evidence will do to backfill the conclusion.
In short, if you acknowledge that you don't have a clue, why pretend you do have a clue? I mean "a hunch" from someone who isn't any kind of expert in rape, human trafficking, trauma or mental illness, is as easily dismissed. Surely you'll agree with that.0 -
Also the question from the last post: How do you think she should have broken the story given that it was almost likely to get out and become public knowledge anyway?0
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »In short, if you acknowledge that you don't have a clue, why pretend you do have a clue? I mean "a hunch" from someone who isn't any kind of expert in rape, human trafficking, trauma or mental illness, is as easily dismissed. Surely you'll agree with that.
I'm not saying that I don't have a clue. I don't have 100% of the facts, that's true. In fact I might have 0% of the facts because Duffy 'could' be making the story up but I'm not saying that. My 'clue' as you call it is based on information that Duffy herself has put out, fairly sketchy information at that and that's what is the basis of my opinion. Throw in other circumstancial evidence such as her disappearance for almost a decade etc. all point to 'something' traumatic having affected her.
I'm not claiming it as expert opinion, I'm claiming it as my own personal opinion. People are well capable of having opinions on things that they aren't experts on. In fact I find it strange that someone wouldn't have an opinion on something just because they don't have 100% of the facts.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Also the question from the last post: How do you think she should have broken the story given that it was almost likely to get out and become public knowledge anyway?
Duffy herself said that someone was intending on breaking her story. This also raises more questions. Who else knew about her story? How did they know etc. etc.
Personally, if I was a public figure and in full control of my faculties and someone threatened to 'out my story', I would probably try and beat them to the punch and publish it first. I think I would get advice from a media consultant and put out a professional, coherent, well written article in a respected publication and in such a way that it answers and closes the matter rather than that jumbled up mess that was released.
If it was released in a professional way, with proper details and a timeline that could be followed, then there would be many less people on the internet and elsewhere questioning her credibility.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this so for that reason, I'm out.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »I'm not saying that I don't have a clue. I don't have 100% of the facts, that's true. In fact I might have 0% of the facts because Duffy 'could' be making the story up but I'm not saying that. My 'clue' as you call it is based on information that Duffy herself has put out, fairly sketchy information at that and that's what is the basis of my opinion. Throw in other circumstancial evidence such as her disappearance for almost a decade etc. all point to 'something' traumatic having affected her.
I'm not claiming it as expert opinion, I'm claiming it as my own personal opinion. People are well capable of having opinions on things that they aren't experts on. In fact I find it strange that someone wouldn't have an opinion on something just because they don't have 100% of the facts.
Duffy herself said that someone was intending on breaking her story. This also raises more questions. Who else knew about her story? How did they know etc. etc.
Personally, if I was a public figure and in full control of my faculties and someone threatened to 'out my story', I would probably try and beat them to the punch and publish it first. I think I would get advice from a media consultant and put out a professional, coherent, well written article in a respected publication and in such a way that it answers and closes the matter rather than that jumbled up mess that was released.
If it was released in a professional way, with proper details and a timeline that could be followed, then there would be many less people on the internet and elsewhere questioning her credibility.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this so for that reason, I'm out.
I have to agree. . We don't know enough to know either way
What makes people question what she says isn't so much what she says but more why she is saying, how she is saying it ,where she is saying ( online social media)and all the parts of the story that she isn't saying.
I agree. Sitting down with a writer and putting all down in a way that makes sense and fills in any holes would be a much better way to say this story
I dont see what she would gain by making this up though0 -
Advertisement
-
BattleCorp wrote: »I'm not saying that I don't have a clue. I don't have 100% of the facts, that's true. In fact I might have 0% of the facts because Duffy 'could' be making the story up but I'm not saying that. My 'clue' as you call it is based on information that Duffy herself has put out, fairly sketchy information at that and that's what is the basis of my opinion. Throw in other circumstancial evidence such as her disappearance for almost a decade etc. all point to 'something' traumatic having affected her.
I'm not claiming it as expert opinion, I'm claiming it as my own personal opinion. People are well capable of having opinions on things that they aren't experts on. In fact I find it strange that someone wouldn't have an opinion on something just because they don't have 100% of the facts.
Duffy herself said that someone was intending on breaking her story. This also raises more questions. Who else knew about her story? How did they know etc. etc.
Personally, if I was a public figure and in full control of my faculties and someone threatened to 'out my story', I would probably try and beat them to the punch and publish it first. I think I would get advice from a media consultant and put out a professional, coherent, well written article in a respected publication and in such a way that it answers and closes the matter rather than that jumbled up mess that was released.
If it was released in a professional way, with proper details and a timeline that could be followed, then there would be many less people on the internet and elsewhere questioning her credibility.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this so for that reason, I'm out.
Of course you're out, As soon as it comes to real, practical questions such as having to think about how you would actually get the story out there, it becomes a bit more difficult to call her mentally ill. The fact that you don't have a clue about rape, people trafficking or the psychology of someone being raped and people trafficked doesn't even impact the conclusion because the conclusion wasn't based on evidence. The conclusion came first and the "evidence" is irrelevant to the conclusion.
You don't have a clue, I know you don't have a clue because you have the same information I have, namely the info Duffy has published herself. All we know is that she made a claim. She didn't even attempt to give names, dates and corroborating evidence. So there's absolutely no point in thinking you've a gotc'ya because it's pretty clear that she wasn't trying to give those kinds of details. So what can we say re names, dates and corroborating evidence? Nothing, because we don't have any. We don't know and cant test the claims because there aren't any.
Like I say, it's absolutely clear as day when you see the people who have made up their mind that it's not true and now any old evidence will do to call her mentally ill and her story is untrue.
Anyone who's being honest will tell you that they don't have a clue because all the information there is, is a claim with absolutely no way to test if it's true or not.
I think some people are uncomfortable with not knowing the answer so they make one up. It's hardly a coincidence that the Columbos who think they've cracked the case and found al the flaws, are the same posters who almost always side against the woman in these kinds of threads. I'd bet a penny to a pound that the posters who think she's not telling the truth are also posters who dislike the #metoo movement. These things aren't coincidence, it's just basic human bias.
I'll just do what I always do when I have very little information on a topic: I'll reserve judgement until I have enough information. It's a simple approach.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Of course you're out, As soon as it comes to real, practical questions such as having to think about how you would actually get the story out there, it becomes a bit more difficult to call her mentally ill. The fact that you don't have a clue about rape, people trafficking or the psychology of someone being raped and people trafficked doesn't even impact the conclusion because the conclusion wasn't based on evidence. The conclusion came first and the "evidence" is irrelevant to the conclusion.
You don't have a clue, I know you don't have a clue because you have the same information I have, namely the info Duffy has published herself. All we know is that she made a claim. She didn't even attempt to give names, dates and corroborating evidence. So there's absolutely no point in thinking you've a gotc'ya because it's pretty clear that she wasn't trying to give those kinds of details. So what can we say re names, dates and corroborating evidence? Nothing, because we don't have any. We don't know and cant test the claims because there aren't any.
Like I say, it's absolutely clear as day when you see the people who have made up their mind that it's not true and now any old evidence will do to call her mentally ill and her story is untrue.
Anyone who's being honest will tell you that they don't have a clue because all the information there is, is a claim with absolutely no way to test if it's true or not.
I think some people are uncomfortable with not knowing the answer so they make one up. It's hardly a coincidence that the Columbos who think they've cracked the case and found al the flaws, are the same posters who almost always side against the woman in these kinds of threads. I'd bet a penny to a pound that the posters who think she's not telling the truth are also posters who dislike the #metoo movement. These things aren't coincidence, it's just basic human bias.
I'll just do what I always do when I have very little information on a topic: I'll reserve judgement until I have enough information. It's a simple approach.
Says the most predictable poster on this topic.
You won't budge an inch from your smug virtuous shallow outlook...
The metoo movement, will in time, do more damage to women than it did to the innocent men who were destroyed by it....you simply cannot accept that there are unintended consequences for a movement that emanated from the most debauched industry on this planet...I find it very curious that it hasn't touched on child abuse something I believe is rampant in Hollywood...or touched on the amount of women who gladly slept their way into lucrative roles.
You have all the appearances of a heavily indoctrinated individual into an ideology that is starting to implode in catfighting.0 -
the_pen_turner wrote: »I have to agree. . We don't know enough to know either way
What makes people question what she says isn't so much what she says but more why she is saying, how she is saying it ,where she is saying ( online social media)and all the parts of the story that she isn't saying.
I agree. Sitting down with a writer and putting all down in a way that makes sense and fills in any holes would be a much better way to say this story
I dont see what she would gain by making this up though
That's what you would do if you wanted to convince every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. Maybe convincing everyone of the truth of what happened isn't her motivation, maybe it was just to take away the incentive from tabloids and prevent them from turning her life into an entertainment arena.
Names, dates, corroborating evidence and precise details, would be for a court case - if she decides to press charges or can press charges. For all we know, giving those details now would actually jeopardise any potential for prosecution if she decides to, or can press charges.
We don't have a clue. If you start with an open mind you'll conclude that you don't have enough evidence to claim to know one way or the other - because that's the only clear thing about the whole case. If you start by concluding it's all true or it's not true, then you've already codded yourself.0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Says the most predictable poster on this topic.
You won't budge an inch from your smug virtuous shallow outlook...
You have all the appearances of a heavily indoctrinated individual into an ideology that is starting to implode in catfighting.
That's right, I "won't budge an inch from your smug virtuous shallow outlook". My smug virtuous shallow outlook is that I (and you) don't have enough evidence to reach any conclusions by honest means. I wont budge from that position - unless there is good evidence. And at the moment there isn't enough good evidence.
I suppose I'm "heavily indoctrinated" to look for enough evidence to reach conclusions. I wonder how you reach conclusions if you think waiting for evidence is the actions of a fool like me...0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That's right, I "won't budge an inch from your smug virtuous shallow outlook". My smug virtuous shallow outlook is that I (and you) don't have enough evidence to reach any conclusions by honest means. I wont budge from that position - unless there is good evidence. And at the moment there isn't enough good evidence.
I suppose I'm "heavily indoctrinated" to look for enough evidence to reach conclusions. I wonder how you reach conclusions if you think waiting for evidence is the actions of a fool like me...
Which is why I haven't made any comment on this particular case.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »If you start with an open mind you'll conclude that you don't have enough evidence to claim to know one way or the other - because that's the only clear thing about the whole case. If you start by concluding it's all true or it's not true, then you've already codded yourself.
That’s not an open mind? I’m reminded of the meme that’s going around lately:
Nobody:
Absolutely nobody:
Duffy: I was drugged, kidnapped and raped.
Ohhhkay then :rolleyes:0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s not an open mind? I’m reminded of the meme that’s going around lately:
Nobody:
Absolutely nobody:
Duffy: I was drugged, kidnapped and raped.
Ohhhkay then :rolleyes:
I have no idea what that meme means.
Like I said, I (and you) don't have enough information to pretend to know what happened. I'll be honest ad say I don't know what happened - which makes me an eegit in your eyes but that's ok. You can pretend to know whatever you like.0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Which is why I haven't made any comment on this particular case.
Great. So you're in agreement with me. Fair play.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That's what you would do if you wanted to convince every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. Maybe convincing everyone of the truth of what happened isn't her motivation, maybe it was just to take away the incentive from tabloids and prevent them from turning her life into an entertainment arena.
Names, dates, corroborating evidence and precise details, would be for a court case - if she decides to press charges or can press charges. For all we know, giving those details now would actually jeopardise any potential for prosecution if she decides to, or can press charges.
We don't have a clue. If you start with an open mind you'll conclude that you don't have enough evidence to claim to know one way or the other - because that's the only clear thing about the whole case. If you start by concluding it's all true or it's not true, then you've already codded yourself.
I have an open mind. I look at these thing from a neutral point of view as much as posible.
She is making a very large and serious claim. The problem is her story doesn't back up that claim fully. It is full of holes.
My opinion is the same as yours. I dont know enough of the details to draw a proper conclusion. I dont know if its tru or not.
I'm not saying she should list off every tiny detail . That could do harm like you say. But rather a brief overview that makes sense. Right now she is leaving the whole situation open to twisting and manipulation from the media .0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I have no idea what that meme means.
Nobody: meme.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Like I said, I (and you) don't have enough information to pretend to know what happened. I'll be honest ad say I don't know what happened - which makes me an eegit in your eyes but that's ok. You can pretend to know whatever you like.
It’s not a question of whether anyone besides Duffy knows what did or didn’t happen. It’s a question of whether or not anyone believes what Duffy claims to have happened, and to that end at least - there is more evidence to support the idea in my view that it’s an attention seeking ploy (hence the meme you didn’t get, which is fair enough, I do actually believe you).
I’m not concerned with what you do or don’t claim to know, so I haven’t given any thought to whether you’re an eejit or not. If you’d said you believed Duffy, then there’s every chance I’d think you were an eejit (albeit a well-meaning idiot who I would completely disagree with).
While I could of course pretend to know what I like, and I could also pretend to believe what I like, the evidence I have so far is not compelling enough to have me believe that Duffy is anything more than an attention seeker exposing herself to as wide an audience as possible on social media by concocting a fantastic tale of misfortune and hoping people will make it a positive experience for her. If making it a positive experience for her includes unquestioning acceptance of her account, then that’s something I’m not prepared to do.
It’s similar to the way in which men who claim they are women want people to make it a positive experience for them by unquestioningly accepting that they are a woman, in spite of the fact that everyone involved knows better, but they are asked to pretend to believe otherwise in order to maintain a facade, or a pretence.
Do you think it does anyone any favours to pretend to believe them, only to pull the rug of support out from beneath them when they make claims that you just can’t support, Alyssa Milano style?0
Advertisement