Jian Ghomeshi trial

[Cunt]

My main point was, and is, that most folks here don't know who the victim really is. You certainly don't.

The victim in this case needs no protection. Quite the opposite, in my opinion. Of course, rEv will deliberately (willfully?) remain ignorant, and misinterpret my words based on this.

Fucking hilarious.

[Cunt]

Um yes you are. By definition if I stop disrespecting you, like you have requested, then I am respecting you. It's a binary distinction. It's no wonder you can't make a coherent point. You seem to have a less than optimal grasp on the English language.

No, little one. You only have to approach me with respect if you want me to help you understand.

I don't mind at all if you choose to educate yourself, or remain ignorant. Really, the choice is yours.

[pErvinalia]

My main point was, and is, that most folks here don't know who the victim really is.

Wow. What an insightful point. Incredible that you could deduct that no one would know who the victim is, given none of us have seen the evidence or heard the testimonies. Give this man a chocolate watch.

So other than stating the bleeding obvious, what are you trying to convey with this brilliant insight?

You certainly don't.

I never said I did. In fact, in the first response to this thread I said as much.

The victim in this case needs no protection.

What kind of retarded logic is this? If you don't know who the victim is, then how can you say that that victim doesn't need protection?

And further, why are you talking about "protection"? Protection only forms a very small part of victim services.

Of course, rEv will deliberately (willfully?) remain ignorant, and misinterpret my words based on this.

Fucking hilarious.

trololol.

[Forty Two]

One, that is true, depending on the jurisdiction. But, then the premise of his comment is undermined, because there is no singling out in that scenario. Nobody is permitted to call people racist names (as long as the law is enforced equally).

That being said, that is NOT feminist theory, and remember, you are big on standing by feminist theory.

Am I? Where did you learn logic? I have said that the concept of patriarchy makes sense to me.

The "feminist theory" concept of patriarchy, which is an arbitrary and overly expansive redefinition of the term in order to make something that is not a patriarchy a patriarchy.

If the idea of a patriarchy focuses on gender norms, rather than males in particular, then it ought not be called patriarchy. It could just as easily be called matriarchy, since we're talking about advantages and disadvantages toward women and men together. Why choose patriarchy? Because the idea is to claim that women are always the oppressed class, and men never the oppressed class, while paying lip service to the oppression of men by declaring it to be another effect of patriarchy. But, feminists don't do anything to try to remedy the issues where men are disadvantaged, and in fact they often actively oppose any measures to remedy disadvantages toward men.

I have said zero about the totality or even the majority of feminist theory.

LOL, so you can pick and choose which feminist theory definitions and ideas you think are applicable, but I can't, right?

In fact, I know very little about anything else that could be called feminist theory.

That much is obvious, yet you call yourself a feminist. It's like those Christians of strong faith, and atheists who know more about Christianity than the Christians themselves.

Perhaps the idea that members can't be effectively a bigot from the position of the less powerful towards the more powerful group. What are some examples of feminist theory that I am supposedly big on standing by?

The ridiculous definition of patriarchy you linked to on the Leftist rag "RationalWiki" which of course embraces the feminist version of patriarchy, which is that everything is patriarchy.

Here is an "equality minded" feminist reading feminist theory, and declaring everything to be part of patriarchy -- include "false rape allegations."


Yep - she says "false rape allegations" are a function of patriarchy. That's where they take the Rational Wiki definition of patriarchy.

[Cunt]

The victim in this case needs no protection.

What kind of retarded logic is this? If you don't know who the victim is, then how can you say that that victim doesn't need protection?

I do know who the victim is. I am perfectly happy with the arrangement. It is set up this way to be just.

I am not surprised that you still don't get it. It is about justice, rather than 'social justice bleating'.

Of course, rEv will deliberately (willfully?) remain ignorant, and misinterpret my words based on this.

Fucking hilarious.

trololol.

[pErvinalia]

One, that is true, depending on the jurisdiction. But, then the premise of his comment is undermined, because there is no singling out in that scenario. Nobody is permitted to call people racist names (as long as the law is enforced equally).

That being said, that is NOT feminist theory, and remember, you are big on standing by feminist theory.

Am I? Where did you learn logic? I have said that the concept of patriarchy makes sense to me.

The "feminist theory" concept of patriarchy, which is an arbitrary and overly expansive redefinition of the term in order to make something that is not a patriarchy a patriarchy.

If the idea of a patriarchy focuses on gender norms, rather than males in particular, then it ought not be called patriarchy. It could just as easily be called matriarchy, since we're talking about advantages and disadvantages toward women and men together. Why choose patriarchy? Because the idea is to claim that women are always the oppressed class, and men never the oppressed class, while paying lip service to the oppression of men by declaring it to be another effect of patriarchy. But, feminists don't do anything to try to remedy the issues where men are disadvantaged, and in fact they often actively oppose any measures to remedy disadvantages toward men.

Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with your assertion that I am big on standing by feminist theory.

I have said zero about the totality or even the majority of feminist theory.

LOL, so you can pick and choose which feminist theory definitions and ideas you think are applicable, but I can't, right?

[/quote]

Oh you poor victim. Where did I say that you can't pick and choose which ideas are applicable? We all have the right to accept or reject whatever theories we want.

And further, this is another non-sequitur as I am not "picking and choosing". The reason I have said zero about the totality or majority of feminist theory is that I have no idea what most of feminist theory is. As I explained below (and a point you commented on ).

In fact, I know very little about anything else that could be called feminist theory.

That much is obvious, yet you call yourself a feminist.

What the fuck? You don't have to know about feminist theory to be a feminist. Being a feminist is first and foremost about equality for women. Where do you come up with this retarded shit?!

Perhaps the idea that members can't be effectively a bigot from the position of the less powerful towards the more powerful group. What are some examples of feminist theory that I am supposedly big on standing by?

The ridiculous definition of patriarchy you linked to on the Leftist rag "RationalWiki" which of course embraces the feminist version of patriarchy, which is that everything is patriarchy.

It's the description in every link you will find about feminist theory. The fact that you don't accept it doesn't all of a sudden not make it a feminist theory.

Here is an "equality minded" feminist reading feminist theory, and declaring everything to be part of patriarchy -- include "false rape allegations."


Yep - she says "false rape allegations" are a function of patriarchy. That's where they take the Rational Wiki definition of patriarchy.

I'm assuming this is just another case of an extreme feminist. We've been over this before. No one here, me included, supports extreme feminism. Feminism is more than just an extreme minority.

[pErvinalia]

The victim in this case needs no protection.

What kind of retarded logic is this? If you don't know who the victim is, then how can you say that that victim doesn't need protection?

I do know who the victim is.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you know who the victim is?

I am perfectly happy with the arrangement.

What "arrangement"? Can you start communicating in English, please?

I am not surprised that you still don't get it.

Get what? You haven't made a single coherent point.

It is about justice, rather than 'social justice bleating'.

Do you have an English translation for this?

[Cunt]

The victim in this case needs no protection.

What kind of retarded logic is this? If you don't know who the victim is, then how can you say that that victim doesn't need protection?

I do know who the victim is.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you know who the victim is?

First off, the 'retarded' logic is the product of years of development and refinement of our judicial system. Using 'retarded' as an insult says much about you, before addressing your question.

I know who the victim is because in EVERY criminal case in Canada, the victim IS the crown. The Crown does not need your white-knighting. It is laughable that you would offer to help the victim because our justice system already HAS helped - by making US the victim. Every crime committed has to answer, but not to you, or your toughest friends.

Every criminal will answer to ALL of us. We stand together so that no victim needs to stand alone.

Pretty fucking badass, huh?

We have a great system. It's hilarious when those who don't bother understanding it start going on about it.

I am perfectly happy with the arrangement.

What "arrangement"? Can you start communicating in English, please?

The victim is a big enough, tough enough victim that you don't need to worry your pretty little head about them.

I am not surprised that you still don't get it.

Get what? You haven't made a single coherent point.

I made points, but you didn't get them because you lack basic education about the subject at hand.

It is about justice, rather than 'social justice bleating'.

Do you have an English translation for this?

Yes. You are pig-ignorant. You know as much about the justice system as a pig knows about pillowcases, and you expect to have your opinion accepted - even respected.

Want respect? Go learn the next missing piece for yourself, rather than begging it out of me.

[pErvinalia]

The victim is the crown?? Ok then...

[pErvinalia]

I mean, What in the fuck does that bollocks mean? It literally makes no sense. So in a court case where someone has been assaulted the victim is actually the State, not the person assaulted? What in the actual fuck are you on about?!?

"We all stand together so no victim need stand alone".. Fucking what?

[Cunt]

I mean, What in the fuck does that bollocks mean? It literally makes no sense. So in a court case where someone has been assaulted the victim is actually the State, not the person assaulted? What in the actual fuck are you on about?!?

"We all stand together so no victim need stand alone".. Fucking what?

Read.

Just read a dockett. You don't have to understand facts to accept them.

Accepting the 'why' would probably take you far too long.

It's even funnier that you continue to resist, even after I gave you the facts.

I just KNEW I should have made you look it up yourself...oh well, my mistake, little one.

Anyway, the Crown doesn't need your pity, or white-knighting. The accusers in the case noted in the OP might, but even if you do defend them, I humbly submit that they will still not touch your peepee.

Do you understand why it is important that the accuser in a criminal case NOT be the victim in that case?

Are you really so dense that you would see that I am right, but still squeal that I'm wrong?

[pErvinalia]

I mean, What in the fuck does that bollocks mean? It literally makes no sense. So in a court case where someone has been assaulted the victim is actually the State, not the person assaulted? What in the actual fuck are you on about?!?

"We all stand together so no victim need stand alone".. Fucking what?

Read.

Just read a dockett. You don't have to understand facts to accept them.

Accepting the 'why' would probably take you far too long.

It's even funnier that you continue to resist, even after I gave you the facts.

What "facts"? You've asserted that the crown is the victim. That's utterly nonsensical. I have to ask, are you stoned?

Anyway, the Crown doesn't need your pity, or white-knighting.

Why the fuck would I give the Crown pity or white-knighting? How is it even possible to white-knight the State?!? You are posting utter nonsense.

The accusers in the case noted in the OP might, but even if you do defend them, I humbly submit that they will still not touch your peepee.

Fucking what?

Do you understand why it is important that the accuser in a criminal case NOT be the victim in that case?

I understand that someone has become unhinged from reality.

Are you really so dense that you would see that I am right, but still squeal that I'm wrong?

How can you be right? You've made one single point, and it literally makes no sense whatsoever. You may as well have asserted the moon is made of cheese and then accused me of not accepting that you were right.

[Cunt]

OK, all kidding aside here, rEv. What do you think the 'R' stands for in court dockets where it says 'RvSmith'?

[pErvinalia]

I assume the 'R' represents the Crown somehow. The Crown clearly handles the prosecution of non-civil cases. That doesn't make them the victim, ffs.

[Cunt]

I assume the 'R' represents the Crown somehow. The Crown clearly handles the prosecution of non-civil cases. That doesn't make them the victim, ffs.

It does, because it makes it really tough to intimidate the victim in that case.

Can you stop making jokes long enough to go learn WHY this is the way justice is handled? It has to do with big questions like 'what is justice' and other important questions.

Of course, you don't have to take the intelligent approach. Even though you have admitted that you didn't know about this until now, you just go on insisting that your opinion is very important because you defend victims.

Good luck with that approach. I got a PM warning me about your tactics, by the way.