Stanford sexual assault: Brock Turner's father sparks outrag

[Meekychuppet]

Whatever. I listened to the first three minutes or so. I won't sit through the rest in the hope that Ms Flaming Go will finally get to her point. All that's needed is for her to tell us that there was no rape, or if there was, it either wasn't the rapist's fault or it was only six month's worth of gaol time worth of fault, or whatever. That can be done in two minutes.

See, this is why you should listen before you criticise. There was indeed no rape. The jury acquitted him of that, thus you demonstrate that, just as I said, your argument is fact free and consists of nothing but outrage. You obviously don't see that you're a useful idiot for a particular cause.

Do you always discredit sources you that have not read or heard?

[Hermit]

Whatever. I listened to the first three minutes or so. I won't sit through the rest in the hope that Ms Flaming Go will finally get to her point. All that's needed is for her to tell us that there was no rape, or if there was, it either wasn't the rapist's fault or it was only six month's worth of gaol time worth of fault, or whatever. That can be done in two minutes.

See, this is why you should listen before you criticise. There was indeed no rape. The jury acquitted him of that, thus you demonstrate that, just as I said, your argument is fact free and consists of nothing but outrage. You obviously don't see that you're a useful idiot for a particular cause.

Do you always discredit sources you that have not read or heard?

Did I discredit Miz Flamingo somewhere? You have not read what I said, have you? I won't sit through 18 minutes of waffling to get information that can be conveyed in two. Miz Flamingo has joined a growing list of vloggers that I consider a waste of time, and no, it's not because I disagree with what she says. Firstly, I don't know what she says because her waffling contained no substance, and secondly, I won't listen to the vloggers that make up The Young Turks because of their excessive waffling either, even though going by what little I heard them say, I'd probably agree with the tenor of what they might be saying.

[Meekychuppet]

Whatever. I listened to the first three minutes or so. I won't sit through the rest in the hope that Ms Flaming Go will finally get to her point. All that's needed is for her to tell us that there was no rape, or if there was, it either wasn't the rapist's fault or it was only six month's worth of gaol time worth of fault, or whatever. That can be done in two minutes.

See, this is why you should listen before you criticise. There was indeed no rape. The jury acquitted him of that, thus you demonstrate that, just as I said, your argument is fact free and consists of nothing but outrage. You obviously don't see that you're a useful idiot for a particular cause.

Do you always discredit sources you that have not read or heard?

Did I discredit Miz Flamingo somewhere? You have not read what I said, have you? I won't sit through 18 minutes of waffling to get information that can be conveyed in two. Miz Flamingo has joined a growing list of vloggers that I consider a waste of time, and no, it's not because I disagree with what she says. Firstly, I don't know what she says because her waffling contained no substance, and secondly, I won't listen to the vloggers that make up The Young Turks because of their excessive waffling either, even though going by what little I heard them say, I'd probably agree with the tenor of what they might be saying.

So the answer is yes, that is what you do. How do you know she's waffling if you don't listen to it all? Is it an age thing? Like, you get do old that you can't tolerate much information coming your way?

Are you one of those people who watches a trailer and hates the film?

[Hermit]

How do you know she's waffling if you don't listen to it all?

The first three minutes were more than is necessary to get to the substance of what she presumably wanted to say.

Is it an age thing?

No. I have stopped reading novels at the 10% mark decades ago.

...you can't tolerate much information coming your way?

The problem is the contrary. After three minutes there still was no info.

Are you one of those people who watches a trailer and hates the film?

Though I don't hate films, I know what you are driving at, so let me let you in on something: I do better than that. I don't need to do as much as watch a trailer to avoid a film. There are people around that only need to say they loved the film for me to know it is not likely to be to my taste, and vice versa. While we are on the subject, I don't feel compelled to watch all of a film before I come to the conclusion that it's not for me. I walked out of cinemas more than once before the show was over.

[pErvinalia]

Whatever. I listened to the first three minutes or so. I won't sit through the rest in the hope that Ms Flaming Go will finally get to her point. All that's needed is for her to tell us that there was no rape, or if there was, it either wasn't the rapist's fault or it was only six month's worth of gaol time worth of fault, or whatever. That can be done in two minutes.

See, this is why you should listen before you criticise. There was indeed no rape. The jury acquitted him of that, thus you demonstrate that, just as I said, your argument is fact free and consists of nothing but outrage. You obviously don't see that you're a useful idiot for a particular cause.

Do you always discredit sources you that have not read or heard?

Did I discredit Miz Flamingo somewhere? You have not read what I said, have you? I won't sit through 18 minutes of waffling to get information that can be conveyed in two. Miz Flamingo has joined a growing list of vloggers that I consider a waste of time, and no, it's not because I disagree with what she says. Firstly, I don't know what she says because her waffling contained no substance, and secondly, I won't listen to the vloggers that make up The Young Turks because of their excessive waffling either, even though going by what little I heard them say, I'd probably agree with the tenor of what they might be saying.

So the answer is yes, that is what you do. How do you know she's waffling if you don't listen to it all? Is it an age thing? Like, you get do old that you can't tolerate much information coming your way?

Are you one of those people who watches a trailer and hates the film?

He's one of those people that has friends. Unlike some others...

[Meekychuppet]

How do you know she's waffling if you don't listen to it all?

The first three minutes were more than is necessary to get to the substance of what she presumably wanted to say.

Is it an age thing?

No. I have stopped reading novels at the 10% mark decades ago.

...you can't tolerate much information coming your way?

The problem is the contrary. After three minutes there still was no info.

Are you one of those people who watches a trailer and hates the film?

Though I don't hate films, I know what you are driving at, so let me let you in on something: I do better than that. I don't need to do as much as watch a trailer to avoid a film. There are people around that only need to say they loved the film for me to know it is not likely to be to my taste, and vice versa. While we are on the subject, I don't feel compelled to watch all of a film before I come to the conclusion that it's not for me. I walked out of cinemas more than once before the show was over.

We'll, as the proverb goes: one can't win an argument with an ignorant man.

[pErvinalia]

uploadfromtaptalk1466160046299.jpg (33.74 KiB) Viewed 1819 times

[Hermit]

We'll, as the proverb goes: one can't win an argument with an ignorant man.

One can. All it requires is to relate facts the man is ignorant of and then point out how they show his opinion - borne of his previous ignorance of said facts - to be wrong. That's why I made the simple request for a summary of the facts, pointing out that I am not prepared to pick them out, if they exist, from an 18 minute presentation, the first three of which were 100% fact free, and where there was no indication that facts might be forthcoming in due course.

While you can argue with an ignorant man, provided you first furnish relevant facts he is ignorant of, you cannot argue with pigheaded fuckwits, for to them facts just don't matter. Pigheaded fuckwits are easy to spot. They don't mention facts when asked to provide them.

[Meekychuppet]

We'll, as the proverb goes: one can't win an argument with an ignorant man.

One can. All it requires is to relate facts the man is ignorant of and then point out how they show his opinion - borne of his previous ignorance of said facts - to be wrong. That's why I made the simple request for a summary of the facts, pointing out that I am not prepared to pick them out, if they exist, from an 18 minute presentation, the first three of which were 100% fact free, and where there was no indication that facts might be forthcoming in due course.

While you can argue with an ignorant man, provided you first furnish relevant facts he is ignorant of, you cannot argue with pigheaded fuckwits, for to them facts just don't matter. Pigheaded fuckwits are easy to spot. They don't mention facts when asked to provide them.

Yeah yeah. I'm not transcribing the video for you. Watch it.

[Hermit]

Pigheaded fuckwits are easy to spot. They don't mention facts when asked to provide them.

Yeah yeah. I'm not transcribing the video for you. Watch it.

Thought not, so yes, I watched it now. Wasted 16 minutes waiting for Flamingo to get to her point, and wouldn't you know it? It is that the whole thing was the woman's fault. Had she not got drunk, none of this would have happened. Altogether, a waste of 18 minutes and 38seconds, then. Contrary to what you said when you provided the Youtube link, Flamingo does not provide any facts we have not already been made aware of by previous reports. Her vlog is 100% opinion. And what a fucked opinion it is...

[pErvinalia]

Mangina.

[JimC]

Mangina.

Sounds like an exotic tropical fruit to me...

[pErvinalia]

[Meekychuppet]

Pigheaded fuckwits are easy to spot. They don't mention facts when asked to provide them.

Yeah yeah. I'm not transcribing the video for you. Watch it.

Thought not, so yes, I watched it now. Wasted 16 minutes waiting for Flamingo to get to her point, and wouldn't you know it? It is that the whole thing was the woman's fault. Had she not got drunk, none of this would have happened. Altogether, a waste of 18 minutes and 38seconds, then. Contrary to what you said when you provided the Youtube link, Flamingo does not provide any facts we have not already been made aware of by previous reports. Her vlog is 100% opinion. And what a fucked opinion it is...

Of course it's opinion, but I also fact-based, and she didn't blame anyone. The main thrust of it is that nobody knows what really happened, he was convicted unjustly. It may well be that he did commit a crime but it certainly was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt so far as I can tell.

But you're never going to agree, since there's little room in your heart or head for anyone or anything else but you. You don't care for the victim, just as those who demand capital punishment don't, despite what they claim. It's virtue signalling on your part and you just want your pound of flesh.

[Hermit]

Of course it's opinion, but I also fact-based, and she didn't blame anyone. The main thrust of it is that nobody knows what really happened, he was convicted unjustly.

The facts are that two witnesses saw Turner humping an unconscious woman lying behind a dumpster with knickers and bra removed and that a medical examination revealed abrasions and bruising in her vagina. Turner ran away (like any innocent man, who was merely making out with a consenting woman naturally would ), was caught, charged with assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. Potentially the charges could have earned him 14 years in gaol. He was rightfully found guilty (Yes we know what happened. There are two witnesses and there is medical evidence) and sentenced to six months in gaol.


As for Flamingo blaming the victim, listen to her. Starting at 15:57, she quotes the victim: "Sometimes I think, if I hadn't gone then this never would've happened. But then I realised, it would have happened to someone else." Flamingo continues: "In other words she's saying Brock Turner was a predator looking for an innocent victim and she just happened to be the one. But no, whatever Brock turner is or isn't, if she hadn't been as drunk as she was, he couldn't have picked on her." So, what could Flamingo possibly mean other than firstly that Brook Taylor is not at fault for the crime because he is not a predator and secondly that the victim caused it by getting very drunk?