But if it’s outlawing book burning in general, that’s quite another story.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” The intended target of this law is crystal clear.
Burn whatever you want, hate whoever you please. It is unpleasant however better than the thought police sending you to the ice prisons for ungood ideas. This idea that censorship stops anything but innovation and creativity is ludicrous.
I agree…civil society should be intolerant of hate and its idols. The state, however, as a control structure, is a terrible judge of whom to hate and whom to love; Danes should be proud their government has done better than most…and strive to keep it that way.
The state must protect all its inhabitants from physical harm, educate on tolerance and empathy, and from there, abdicate who to love and hate to its citizens.
I have to say, I really don’t know the finer points of this, but I’ve personally witnessed women who were okay with sexual advances until their friends told them not to be.
Peer pressure is a powerful force, especially for those who have difficulty thinking for themselves. I don’t know if this is an individual who would maintain their stance if everyone around them was telling them to change it.
Notice how her entire team immediately took her side? This isn't the first time he's done something like this, and she's not the first person on the team he's done it to, either.
The counterargument is that she said it wasn’t consensual. Holy shit, how many people in your life should think about pressing charges against you if that’s how you think consent works?
Since you are making this personal, I won’t argue with you. However if you are curious, you can check my other comments to the ones that are actually giving arguments without being personal.
There’s a significant difference between claiming some things was spontaneous and actually getting consent. This guy wasn’t in a relationship with the player where this type of behavior would have been previously cleared. He’s not even claiming that he asked permission. In this case you would have to assume mutual spontaneous consent. That is what he’s claiming. However, one party has clearly said it wasn’t mutual consent. So now you either have to assume the victim is lying or you take the logical path and realize that there’s photographic evidence of a powerful figure, who doesn’t claim to have asked for consent, assaulting a female athlete and showing no regard or remorse for that behavior.
First of all thanks for an actual argument without throwing insults and such.
You are right indeed, about actual consent, spontaneousness/ spontaneous consent. One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?
I mean, certainly if it was not, he should resign and such. I would like to say though, I never said that there was no photographic evidence. This matter is an she versus he said.
No man. Use your fucking brain. This is either one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen or you are truly an idiot.
You're saying the equivalent of "How do we know person A punched person B, and it wasn't person B who slammed his face into person A's fist? shrug We as internet observers just can't know."
It's disgustingly dishonest. Everyone is trying to tell you this and you keep retreating further. Step out of your shoes or whatever personal reason is causing you to have this cognitive dissonance and look the situation honestly. You should see that your posts defending this have been pathetic and dishonest.
Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.
Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.
My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.
Certainly he can he an ‘‘POS’’ but I don’t know. I don’t know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.
Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.
Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?
I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.
My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.
So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.
I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.
When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I’m disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
please explain what kind of “sign” you are thinking of.
please then make an earnest attempt to empathise: you are in a public situation, your boss, who has an immense amount of control over your future career, makes an unwanted sexual advance. how confident do you feel enacting the “sign” in point #1
please then rate, on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is “not at all convincing” and 10 is “completely convincing”, the “sign” in point #1, and the public statement after the fact that the kiss was not consensual, in terms of you believing that Hermoso did not consent. in rating the public statement after the fact, please bear in mind the risks of the public statement to Hermoso (including the lawsuit mentioned in this article, the potential career damage in point #2, and the potential harm that thhe player is likely to cause to people who have experienced sexual assault, were she to be discovered to have been lying about not consenting)
I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
This is absolutely true when dealing with tribalists. You’re either with them or against them; there is no in-between.
Just look at everyone getting mad at you for even suggesting we don’t know all the facts. Sad, but that’s what this generation has become. Rabid fools desperate to fit in with other rabid fools.
If they’re mad about an opinion over the internet, well that’s on them. Nowadays it’s pretty much follow the hype train and pretending to know everything.
They can downvote me to oblivion, that’s fine. It’s internet point which does not mean anything at all and especially here on Lemmy. I can still do everything. So it matters even less.
Majority doesn’t even have a good argument point, if I remember well, there were only one or two people who had. The rest didn’t and went direct into personal matters, which isn’t a good thing for an argument.
I quite much forgot about this thread/ argument until, I saw your comment.
It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?
The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy’s doing the same so maybe it’s just typical conversation on here.
A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.
I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.
While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
Yeah, it’s just an indicator that a bunch of random people have read your posts and independently decided you’re talking absolute shite. Probably nothing.
A person in a position of power does something unwanted to another person underneath his/her power. Then the person in a position of power claims the person underneath lied about consent. This is always the fault of the person in power. Shame on you for not having better judgment. Be better.
That was the risk he chose to take when he took advantage of the power dynamic. None of us get to choose the severity of punishment for bad actions but we are responsible. And there is no question he is at fault here. You can reasonably argue the severity of punishment but no one should be questioning his accountability here.
Wrong. The power dynamic is not equal. Therefore it is impossible to “figure out a solution on their own.” Your profound ignorance around abuses of power are shocking. Get help.
Edit: I love how what appears to be a bunch of men on the internet defending the sexual assault of a woman beneath the male in the power dynamic. And all of her colleagues and teammates are defending her, not him. A story as old as time itself.
He abused the power dynamic. Cry about it all you want, but the guy who grabs his dick in front of a minor after a victory and who thinks he can sexually assault anyone he wants just fucked around and found out. Finally.
There is something to be said about missing perspectives from outsiders and even the ease of digital modifications of images, in a completely different situation that this mushbrained loser is trying to apply to this one for some reason.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest