Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,
Clearly they need a terminology update …
It's RAPE dammit.
That's the bit where 17 and 18 year old rapists put their penises into the vaginas of 13 year old girls too drunk to resist.
And you men are arguing about whether you have the correct word and whether a public protest about apologists and enablers took the correct form.
Perhaps you should back up and start to think about how to stop your sons from raping so that we never ever have to have this discussion again.
Ok I think this might have gotten to me a little. -
And I think this is my favourite
-
3rd door
-
And since I can't figure out how to adds more than one at a time
-
Some Doors my partner took photos of while in Mexico
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I do not see those quotes as being contradictory.
Without meaning this in a derogatory way I suspect that is because you are a lawyer. You are technically correct it is possible for both those statements to exist and be non-contradictory.
But most people when they read Tom's inference that the rape claims were not real, draw the not unreasonable conclusion that he believes most rape claims are not real.
The data indicates that only a tiny fraction of rape claims are false. That the legal system makes it almost impossible to convict rapists does not prove that rape claims are false but rather proves that the legal system has failed* in particular for this crime.
Thus most people conclude that Tom is trivializing rape by denying it's existence.
*Taken from the perspective that the legal system exists to protect members of society from actions that society has deemed to be "wrong".
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
trying to pretend I somehow think child rape is a trivial matter
You opened your post by inferring that Amy was not real and that the criminal events, rapes, that occurred were not real.
Frankly I found your post hard to read because it tried to dismiss something utterly reprehensible as non-existent.
That to me is trivialising a non-trivial matter.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that’s dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?
Bravo. I was wondering how to rebut that diatribe and you have done it so very well, thank you.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Beard,
that may be giving too much credit to the advertisers’ conscience and not enough to their commercial nous
From what Gio has said it did appear to be a combination of both morals (shock horror) and commercial nous (Good God we don't want to stand next to that pile of ...).
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
two of the few Maori voices
Are you suggesting those two “represent Maori”?
I don’t really believe that is true. They may represent the opinions of some Maori.
ETA What Craig said.
