women's march

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Jan 20, 2018.

  1. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    736
    Who allegedly groped women’s backsides. And where's this additional photo Franken posed for?
    Using Tweeden’s body? You mean photographing her as she slept in a public area.
    Grabbing her boobs? It’s questionable as to whether his pose would even meet a legal definition of grope, but it definitely would not meet any definition of grab.

    Ever try to use such form to grab anything? Maybe if your into levitation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I imagine the guy sleeping next Tweeden was likely ravaged as well. Those single digit finger brushes can be brutal.
    I'm saying that in the circumstance of a prank, consent isn't supposed to be an issue, and offense needn't be taken when it circumstantially wasn't intended. Remember the old TV show Candid Camera? It wouldn't have worked if they presented the participants with a consent forms prior to the gags.

    I don’t. There very well may be secret footage of Franken assaulting every sleeping person on the plane, but that’s not the context of the photo in question. Are you implying Franken didn’t know he was being photographed? Or thought he was acting in secret?
    I think you meant allegedly groped or kissed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,618
    So you equate me as being a "feminazi" because I view being harassed on the street, at work, going about my day to day life as being sexual harassment?

    Tell me, do you know the history of the term "feminazi"? I mean, you seem to be embracing far right wing rhetoric lately, do you understand the history of that term?

    And do you equate feminists with Nazi's? And I want you to try to really think about that one and what it all entails.

    Put simply, it is a fairly offensive term and I would prefer if you did not refer to me that way.

    What ranting? I am stating fact. My previous post was to provide you with historical fact. It seems your knowledge and understanding of history, particularly the political and economic history of Australia is quite woeful.

    Again, what "emotional garbage"? I am providing you with facts.

    Just because you are a sensitive snowflake and cannot cope with reading what women experience without resorting to abuse to avoid it is not my problem. If your sole intent is to troll and basically act like a flaming idiot because you want to shut the discussion down because you want to reserve the right to continue to sexually harass women, then I'd suggest you go and find a thread that will be less upsetting for you.

    Please take a moment and read what I said again. Pay particular attention to the word "average". And try to apply it correctly. Go on. Try.

    In 1980, in the majority of industries, workers still worked 40 hour weeks.

    I would consider Paul Keating as being Australia's greatest PM. Whitlam completely and utterly failed to adapt to the changing global economy, the monetary costs of the Vietnam war, the global slump. Like the Liberal Goverment that came before him, he applied the Keynesian system of governance, to disastrous effect. Instead of slowing down government spending, he increased spending. By the end of 1974, Australia was nearly broke, the previous surplus was gone (due to an excessive amount of spending), unemployment skyrocketed (which took decades to recover from and frankly, we still haven't recovered from it). To compensate, Whitlam then basically went back on his earlier policies and slashed funding, leaving lower and working class struggling (many became unemployed and his slashing funding resulted in widespread suffering), they lost their jobs, homes, had little to no recourse, he then instituted university fees, which did not benefit Australia economically and essentially resulted in many being denied the right or ability to attend university..

    That is why there were so many strikes. Economically, Whitlam ruined Australia. And I mean that literally. We are still recovering from his spending. He increased Government spending by like what? 40% or something? When the country could not afford it, which caused even worse inflation, caused even greater loss of employment, wages weren't rising to meet inflation, people suffered. There is a reason why the gap between the have's and have not's is so wide and it started with Whitlam. There is this idolatry surrounding Whitlam, even still to this day, but the reality is vastly different to how people choose to remember him. His taking money from Saddam Hussein for his election (which resulted in many of his front bencher's resigning in disgust), is dismal foreign policy record...

    He was also xenophobic, demanded that Vietnamese people not be allowed to enter Australia, even those who helped Australian soldiers during the war and were left to die or torture when Australia withdrew, despite all attempts by members of his own government and the opposition to save as many as they could. His stance was repulsive in the extreme. His crowning achievement was his giving Indigenous Australians some of their land rights and instituting policies that recognised their fundamental human rights. For that, he should be recognised as being a great. But economically? He was a disaster.

    There is a reason why Whitlam lost the next election by one of the biggest landslides in Australia's political history. And it wasn't because he was Australia's greatest PM or because he and his party were removed from power. It was because he was one of the worst.

    And that isn't a rant, that is historical fact. Remove the rose coloured glasses, paddoboy. Stop being so selective about Australian history.

    And you still fail to understand why Whitlam's popularity plummeted across the board..
    Magistrate.

    Secondly, you seem to agree with her. And I do not know of a single person who would compare or equate the two. Then again, I tend to not hang around with people who demand that their right to sexually harass women on the street be protected, sooo... Let me guess, she's like Pat O'Shane who has a history of disbelieving rape victims and once declared that victims of a gang rape should be held responsible for their supposed actions or behaviour prior to being gang raped...

    I mean, to even suggest that the fight for women's fundamental human rights is akin to the union movement in Australia in the 1970's.. As I said, I do not know a single person who would make such a comparison, but again, I tend to not associate with people who throw down for sexual harassment of women.

    A disprin?

    I'd suggest you go and have a sit down with some history books. And get a clue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,618
    They were posted in the media several times.

    He groped one woman as her husband took the photo. He groped another woman's breast during a photo and she had to twist her body to get his hand off her boobs for the photo. He groped another woman, a reporter, during another photo op. These were all widely published. Quite a few of them corroborated.

    8 different women, not known to each other, at different events. At what point are you going to start believing victims?

    So sleeping in a public area makes it open season? What does where she was sleeping have anything to do with it?

    What the hell?

    He used her body as a prop, his mugging for the camera, his hands where they are over her boobs. Without her consent.

    I mean, what part of 'without her consent' do you still seem to be having issues with?

    Ya, legally it does meet the definition of 'groping'.

    You find sexual harassment and sexual battery funny, Capracus?

    Candid Camera also never sexually harassed women in this way.

    You do understand this, yes?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,232
    Still looking for safe circumstance↑ for acceptable sexual assault? That's why it's called rape advocacy.

    So, hey: The idea of laughing at a photo of Franken as a sexual subordinate to you has what to do with a photo of Franken groping a woman without consent?

    Are you going to give it a try, or run away? If you're unwilling to at least try backing up the stupid things you say↑, why should anyone else take you sincerely? In the end, it's the rape advocacy that makes you relevant, because rape advocacy makes you dangerous.

    Trashy cowardice is a terrible fashion on pretty much anyone.

    • • •​

    Think of it this way, Paddoboy: You could try treating women as human beings, but why would you? I mean, after all this time, why would you abandon such ridiculous and stupid sexism?

    Points 3-5 illustrate pretty directly: Try regarding people as people. If you move on a bus, for instance, because someone needs to sit, it is because someone needs to sit, not because that someone is a woman. You've gone from discriminating against women for condescension to discriminating against women for revenge; while unfortunate, such outcomes are not unexpected.

    As long as "woman" is subject to xenophobia, we will keep encountering this blatantly obvious gaffe that is apparently a bit too subtle for some. If a pretense of kindness is so discriminatory, it is no kindness at all.
     
  8. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Sorry, but reading this bit, I'm reminded of similar arguments about witnesses of aliens, ufos, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. without evidence. The number of claimed sightings seems to trump the lack of evidence.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,627
    So saying something is a "prank" is a defense against not getting consent? Are you serious here? I mean, sexual assaulters would love to see that work, but most sane people don't.
    It does not NEED to be taken. But if it IS taken then it is perfectly valid.

    If you get consent from a woman before doing something like that - then no problem. Just ask. "Hey, I am going to pretend to grope you for a bit; you OK with that?"

    If you don't get consent from a woman, and she decides it's not OK - you should go to jail.

    You want to risk that? Then don't ask her, and call it a "prank."
    Yep. And if Allen Funt went around grabbing women's breasts (or pretending to) he'd be going to jail too. (Or found himself in a fistfight with her husband/boyfriend.) Fortunately he was smarter than that, and didn't assault women; his pranks ran more to removing things (like a car wheel) and asking someone to check his tire pressure.

    That's a pretty simple lesson that you would think people can learn.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,627
    If 8 different people saw a rapidly moving light in the sky over Denver, then it's very good evidence that there was a rapidly moving light over Denver.
    If 8 different people said that Joe sexually assaulted them, then it's very good evidence that Joe sexually assaulted them.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,885
    You would like sharia court, where you need four male witnesses to prove a rape.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Being wolf whistled is not harrassment, and if you believe it is, then yes to your question.
    The history? not really, but I would say simply a term to describe a radical feminist that holds extreme views about what is and isn't sexual harrassment.
    Far right rhetoric??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Reminds me of the day long ago in the early seventies, when I was a union delegate and had helped achieved a 35 hour week along with many other conditions after a long protracted 5 week strike [which contradicts your own claims about when it was achieved] ...I was accosted that day by a far right nut and accused of being a rotten commo c#@$ who had only cost him money, and later that same day, accosted by a far left nut, in being nothing but a low down bosses stooge in not hanging out for more. My rhetoric and thoughts are based on what I believe is correct and decent and right for the majority...nothing more, nothing less.
    Is it? So is being called an Idiot and the many other less then respectful hateful rants you have directed at a few more on this forum who happen to disagree with your radical views. The cure for that Bells is to tone down your own language, stop making silly outrageous claims like people condoning rape simply because they see a wolf whistle as harmless. OK?

    My knowledge and understanding of Australian history is OK my friend, and I have lived through it in most part, at least with the period/s under discussion.
    Also my knowledge of said history is certainly not influenced by any far left or far right label, as your own seems to be. You do understand that depending on who you talk to, you may get two diametrically opposed views?
    Anyway here is a reasonable proper history of Australian Politics in that era.....I believe they trump your tinted interpretation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam
    As I said, the 35 hour week was first achieved in the early seventies under Gough, and an all out successful assault with the wider populace in 1980 or thereabouts. Your facts that you presented are tinged with whatever agenda it is that you have.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And there we go again, Ladies and Gentlemen!! Sensitive Snowflake!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And continue to sexually harass women?? Tell you what girly, why don't you contact the appropriate authorities and inform them of those on this forum that are condoning sexual harassment. Perhaps while you are at it, you can also start a campaign re the sexual jokes that do the rounds, that focus on gender and/or nationality...Let me equate you with a few....
    1. What’s the fastest way to a man’s heart?
    Through his chest with a sharp knife.
    or.....
    As an airplane is about to crash, a female passenger jumps up frantically and announces, "If I'm going to die, I want to die feeling like a woman." She removes all her clothing and asks, "Is there someone on this plane who is man enough to make me feel like a woman?" A man stands up, removes his shirt and says, "Here, iron this!".
    Or better still, I have a Irish mate who tells the best Irish jokes around....you understand Irish jokes??
    Here's one.....
    A man walks into a bar and orders three beers.

    The bartender brings him the three beers, and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third, until they're gone.

    He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one, and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low."

    The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the Ireland. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night, we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three beers, too, and we're drinking together."

    The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition, and every week he sets up the guy's three beers. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them and then orders two more. The bartender says sadly, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry you've lost a brother."

    The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine -- I just quit drinking."

    Have those jokes lightened your day Bells?
    And I said a section of the Union movement, namely the Petro-Chemical Industry....
    Terrific PM Keating, as was Hawke, but it was Gough among his many other achievements that gave Australia Medibank...Your tinted version of what happened, is just that...Let me say though that the short comings that did hinder the Whitlam era, were more a result of a couple of his Ministers and their actions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam
    Yet the Vietnam war and our participation in it ceased in 1973, although to give credit where it is due, it was the previous Liberal government that began our withdrawal from that conflict.Out of interest I actually took part in a anti Vietnam war Moratorium in Sydney...so much for my right leanings that you so inferred.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam
    You picking me up on spelling Bells?? Ahh, reminds me of the good old days with dmoe and his fanatical obsession with me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Of course I do! Just as I agree with many women of the same opinion re some of the extreme ideologies being pushed by some in the feminist movement.
    And sometimes, yes sometimes, women can be real arseholes, acting simply vindictive towards a male or male companions when things don't go the way they they [the women] believe they should. Reminds me of a NRL team who while on holidays at the Central coast, had to undergo all sorts of inuendo re a couple of women who made many outrageous claims against certain players, until a photo surfaced with one of the players sitting on the edge of a swimming pool, with his legs dangling in the water, and his trunks down: Also there was one of the women in the water with her head between his legs...the caption under the photo at the time read...."She's not blowing bubbles in his belly button" or words to that effect.


    That's certainly what I said...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I suggest you remove your own tinted glasses and understand the period as it was, without any left or right agenda or leanings. I lived though it, and although being an old bastard now, I am able to recall and interpret without fear nor favour.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Nice reasonably polite post....thank you.
    In answer...I treat everyone equally....I am all for Women's equality, as opposed to women's rights.
    With regards to those points I made, perhaps I need to take some blame by not adding the appropriate emoji...I was being fecetious, even sarcastic if you will.
    I can assure you that being a the baby boomer generation and having had decency and reasonableness instilled into me at an early age, I will still always stand for a women on a bus...even though I'm now 73, although a pretty healthy and fit 73....I will always modify my speech when a women is present...being a rough diamond, with mates, I do use the "magic word" a fair bit, but eliminate that when women are present. I still often help young women with trolleys parcels, loads etc. I regard women as women, equal but of opposite sex and being physically in general weaker then the male sex, will always go out of my way to help when required. Is that discrimination? Or respect? Is it simply a result of my upbringing and the standards that applied with my generation? Certainly with regards to women, in my generation they were discriminated against but much of that is being addressed at this time, as it should be. But as I have said, and as the women in the links I have given have said, there is a small number of women within the movement, who want more then equality...perhaps that is just human nature. Doesn't make it correct though.

    Damn this!! I have things to do and places to see!!!!
     
  14. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Maybe you missed the part about aliens, bigfoot, and ghosts. Those people tend to assume the source of lights in the sky is not terrestrial.
    Ha! Just pointing out the similarity, not the equality.

    Police should be the first to receive reports of sexual assault. They can control what gets out to verify corroborating details that are not publicly known.
    Once someone releases details on social media, there's little means to verify without other evidence.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,133
    Very often, it is.
    And that's even without the implied threat, very common as well.
    That is not even up for discussion - there has to be a common reality.
    A world in which that expectation were reasonable would be a better place, no doubt. Meanwhile, in this one - - - -
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,627
    Nope. If eight people saw something in the woods that looked like a tall man, then odds are they saw something that looked like a tall man. (That, of course, does not mean it was Bigfoot.)
    I highlighted the important word above.
    Yes, they should. Unfortunately assaulters have learned how to work the system to reduce the chances of that.
     
  17. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    736
    If they're so widely published then it should be easy for you to post the images.
    Sleeping in a public area means you loose an expectation of privacy, so the fact that you get photographed under those conditions does not constitute a violation of privacy. Also pranking in a public area shows a lack of intent to hide the action.
    He may have had some incidental contact with a fingertip or two on the flack vest she was waring, but to say his hands were all over her boobs, as in clutching and grabbing them is just plain dishonesty.
    What part of prank don’t you understand?
    Groping requires an element of intent, that’s why non consensual contact of a qualified part of the anatomy isn’t automatically considered assault. We already covered this with the Youtube pranks and you still don’t get it.
    I find pranks funny. I find your inability to recognize them as such to be sad.
    I probably haven’t seen the majority of the bits done on Candid Camera, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some of their pranks would qualify as harassment by your standards.
    Already addressed it, and was waiting on you.
    And when something isn’t sexual assault, consent has a different relevancy.
    The fact that someone is offended by an action does not necessarily determine the general nature of the act.
    That’s the point, pretending to grope, not actually groping. Getting consent violates the requirements for this particular prank.
    If it’s an actual case of assault.
    The risk Franken took was that she would be offended by it, which apparently she was, but her offense does not necessarily make it what it isn’t.
    There were all kinds of contractual restriction on Allen Funt’s behavior while on the show that had nothing to do with legality. Had he preformed in a less restricted media platform that allowed him to be more edgy, who knows what he would’ve done.
     
  18. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Oh right, police are evil misogynist bastards.
    Considering I didn't say "tall man in the woods".
    Is there any dispute that it is assumption?
    Such claims need to be balanced, just like the assumption of a true accusation, without further evidence, needs to be balanced against the presumption of innocence.
    Unless you're just looking for social mob justice. Then claims of bigfoot are sufficient.
    Really? Is there a handbook or something?
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,232
    Just so we're clear, here: Your address of the issue is an argument to establish safe circumstance:

    (1) Just call it comedy, then it's okay?

    (2) "Mock sexual intent"? See point (1).

    (3) Three Amigos comes to mind: "Do you know what foreplay is? Good! Neither has El Guapo."

    (4) Playing to the audience? See point (1).

    Yes.

    Hey, have you ever heard of "rape culture"?

    Yes. It's called "rape culture".

    Okay, this is the really stupid part, when all the flaccid wet ends get all confuzzled and disorientated and discombobulatated:

    Rape Culture in Effect

    • Definition of act.

    → Incident of act.

    ↳ Context for why this incident does not meet definition.

    ∴ Therefore this incident does not equal definition of act.​

    Now here's the tricky part:

    Do you really think that Franken is stupid enough to intentionally commit [act definied as offense but exempted from definition for arbitrary pretense] and at the same time invite others present to visually and photographically document the [act exempted from being considered an offense for arbitrary pretense]? And provide the “victim” evidence to [celebrate and remind the occasion]?

    And, yeah, actually, because that kind of stupidity was customarily

    So now, when we look back from a vantage that no longer recognizes such arbitrary pretenses, you're going to need to come up with something better than the shelter of arbitrary pretense.

    Do you really think Mr. Franken doesn't know what he's doing at this point?

    It's one of those things I keep reiterating, and it's one thing to disagree but simply blowing by it in order to, well, make the point for me, I guess ... I mean, really:

    As I wrote over two months ago↗:

    Thus, to use "showbiz": Look, I recognize that behavior, and am willing to use the word "sophomoric", but that is as much as either Mr. Franken or myself can push. There is a question of what passes muster in showbiz, and that absolutely needs to be settled. Furthermore, what we might, in a prior time, have written off as sophomoric bullshit boys club behavior according to the irreverence of comedic showbiz, is not ours or his to define in the moment.

    It kind of cuts both ways: To the one, if Mr. Franken is a comedian, what is the then that licenses such behavior? And therein we find the hook: Once upon a time, there existed an expectation that this was somehow okay because, you know, fill in the blank about creativity and the fact of an entertainment industry. I don't actually disagree with "humor by a comedian" anymore than I would disagree with "persuasive business tactics" in taking the international businessmen out to the strip club. Yes, this is how things have been for a long time, and that is in and of itself problematic.


    (#173↑)

    (Hint: That post was actually to you.)

    No, really. As zgmc↑ put it, "They were comedians on tour overseas. It was supposed to be a joke. They are comedians." Or as I acknowledged months ago, "showbiz"↗—and reiterated↗—or Capracus↑ put it, "humor by a comedian"—and, oh, hey, what was that I acknowledged yet again↑ all of a week and a half ago, about "showbiz"?

    (#245↑)

    You just keep obliviously coming back to what's already been covered, and the thing about doing so is that you're not offering any new argument about it.

    So, to look back over two and a half months: There is a question of what passes muster in showbiz, and that absolutely needs to be settled. Furthermore, what we might, in a prior time, have written off as sophomoric bullshit boys club behavior according to the irreverence of comedic showbiz, is not ours or his to define in the moment.

    Simply pretending otherwise, Capracus, does not make it so.

    I get that society will going to keep coming back to this particular confusion, but it's a neurotic confusion, and maybe someday one or another of the craven advocates will muster up some manner of useful answer. Perhaps it will be an accident. Who knows?

    After all, it's not really an accident. Rather, it's an act of will, of attempted invalidation simply in the act of ignoring the hell out of anyone you don't like.

    So, yeah, yet again: The idea of laughing at a photo of Franken as a sexual subordinate to you has what to do with a photo of Franken groping a woman without consent?

    There is a weird disconnection people often imply between art and what it depicts. If I crack a guy's head with a giant hammer, I can say I pranked him and, hey, look, it's an old and oft-performed comedic bit. And maybe you can point out that I'm showing you a sequence of cartoon excerpts. But I'm also curious what part of pranking the dude means I didn't just hit him with a hammer?

    Like Homer said, "But football in the groin is football in the groin." Call it a gag or a prank or a joke, but it's still some dude getting hit in the nutsack.

    And the dualism is its own morbidity. What, either Franken is a serial predator or a cuck traitor? Can't he be both? Seriously, the degree to which these angry Franken defenders simply do not trust him makes rather quite clear that he's not really who or what they're worried about.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,618
    You may not have heard the term “street harassment”, but if you’re a woman in Australia, you’ve probably experienced it: whistles, stares, unwanted comments, touching or being followed by strangers in the street.

    According to research by the Australia Institute, 87% of us have experienced some form of physical or verbal street harassment, often before the age of 18. Internationally, this figure is higher, at 96%.

    As with other forms of sexualised violence, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of street harassment and women the victims – although victims may also be targeted on account of ethnicity and or sexual orientation.

    While it may be tempting to dismiss such occurrences as “minor” or “harmless”, there is a substantial body of research that tells us this is not the case. The impacts of street harassment vary depending on the context, and range from the immediate, visceral responses of anger, repulsion and shock, through to longer-term effects such as anxiety, depression and, in some cases, post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Street harassment also has a very real impact on women’s use of and access to public spaces. Women consistently report that they limit their movements in public in order to avoid street harassment as well as more “serious” sexual violence.

    Why are you arguing for the protection and continuation of sexual harassment of women in the street, paddoboy?

    Wolf whistling women is often sexual harassment. Why do you think it is acceptable behaviour?
    So you are using a term, the history of which you do not know or understand and you deliberately attribute the fight for women's fundamental human rights with Nazism.

    And what extreme view? Do you still not understand that when men catcall women, we don't know what comes next? We start to think about how he will respond if we ignore him, if we respond, if we smile it will encourage it, if we don't respond as he wants us to, what happens then? Women are being assaulted and murdered for not responding to street harassment, paddoboy.

    Why do you think this is acceptable? And why do you view our demands that this behaviour stops as being "radical" or "extreme"?

    I'm talking about my safety and wellbeing. You seem to believe I do not have the right to feel safe when walking down a street. Why?
    While ignoring the countless of studies done on this very issue..

    And you still don't understand the meaning of the word "average".
    Wolf whistling is not harmless. Women are murdered in some instances for not responding in the manner the whistler or cat caller wanted her to. You condone rape culture when you repeatedly argue that street sexual harassment should continue.
    *Raise eyebrows*

    You really have a problem with women, don't you?
    No, but they do show what kind of person you are.
    Cough..

    The Health Insurance Bill 1973 (ie Medibank) was one of the Bills that led to the double dissolution of the Whitlam government.

    And it was Bill Hayden who came up with the legislation that was later adopted by Malcolm Fraser with several amendments and then passed into law after the double dissolution, and without the tax levy that the Labor government had proposed in the legislation.
    Okay?

    But you tout Whitlam as being so great, when he refused to allow any Vietnamese refugees and allies into the country?

    What Whitlam did when Saigon fell will forever remain a blight on Australia's history.

    He was as obsessed with you, as you were with him.
    What extreme ideology?

    You keep saying this, but you are yet to actually detail what you mean by it, aside from whining that we don't want to be sexually harassed in the street.
    Firstly, a woman having consensual sex with one person, the player by the pool, does not mean she was not gang raped by several other players.

    Secondly, she was found beaten and bloodied and required hospital care for goodness sake. The evidence that she was not raped was an eyewitness who saw her having consensual sex with one person by the pool. That one person was not accused of her gang rape. It was 6 other players who stood accused of gang raping her. But because she was apparently seen to be involved in a consensual act with one person, it meant that she could not have been raped or that there was not sufficient evidence of rape, despite the fact that she was found so badly injured that she required an ambulance to transport her to hospital? I mean, this is what you are using as an example of 'women being arseholes'? Really?

    Fucking pathetic.
    Ya. And you are carrying water for a PM who openly sided with the Communist regime and denied entry to those trying to flee said Communist regime, especially those who worked at the Australian embassy there, who helped the Australian soldiers against said communist regime, ensuring that many of them were slaughtered. Yeah, you interpret it "without fear nor favour".
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,885
    What part of "that's not an excuse for anything" don't you understand? The act is independent of intent.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,627
    Right - I did. Because that's what people see. They then ASSUME (that word again) that it's Bigfoot.
    Not when eight people agree. Then there's very little doubt.
    Nope. Eight people saying they saw a tall man in the woods, or lights in the sky, or were assaulted by Joe, aren't "mob justice." They are just evidence that that actually happened.
    Nope. Such rules are regularly on display; no need for any sort of handbook. " . . .beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy." Followed by, of course, "it's her word against mine" and attempts to ruin them. Call them sluts, call them whores, call them publicity hounds. Get them fired. Sue them. Just follow the formula.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,133
    To that extent the act must be described without reference to the intent, or inferences from the intent.
    There is no evidence, for example - not even an accusation - that Franken ever "grabbed boobs" without consent.
    That he threatened, retaliated against, or persisted in harassing*, anyone.
    Remove the inference of intent, and his actions become by turns trivial and innocent.
    Very few people believe that, of course - or should, imho - but that's because they infer intent of some kind, perhaps folded into attitude. The entire issue with Franken is one of intention, attitude: that's what determines what the "anything" is that remains unexcused.

    And to bring it around: changing those inferences of intent, and by reflection the context of attitude in the assessor and projected unto the assessed both, is something a "women's march" can do more effectively than almost anything else outside of a high art - which normally works one on one.

    *One must specify "persistent harassment" in these contexts, because even single and solitary actions not suffered repeatedly from a given perp or collective of perps are now labeled "harassment". It's part of the sliding vocabulary the side of the high moral ground has employed, variously justified.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018

Share This Page