koti

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Beaufiul exhibition of dirty, hermetic, ideologically driven cencorship in the worst possible way. A sincere f u to you iNow and the mods.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I just thought the pronoun thing wasn't very funny.  We are allowed to react to the jokes, right?  

For example, my SpaceX/SpaceY joke was tasteless and crude, and I would support anyone's right to say so, or reject it any other way.

Personally I find the pronoun choice for nonbinary folks a poor one that's kind of been forced on them by the fact that people are unable to adapt to new pronouns which would surely work better and without ambiguity.  Instead of she and her, why not assign a new NB set of pronouns like de and der?  This would eliminate what would seem to be a chronic source of confusion with they/their/them.  

 

 

Do you find this at least a little funny?

Clown/Clownself as pronouns considering the context has to be a little funny no?

5 hours ago, MigL said:

It's a good thing Koti wasn't on stage, or you'd have gone up and slapped him.

He’d be welcome to try. Whatever the outcome I can guarantee that the paramedics would have to check up on two people instead of only one poor Chris Rock. 

Haven’t been here for a while but came in to pay my condolences to most of the regulars who will have to pay the 16 bucks to stay around on twitter 😂

In case the moderators do decide to lock this thread and I would like to stick to what I said earlier about this thread being my last one, I’d like to say something as I feel its not healthy to leave on a bad note;

I learned a lot from this forum back in the day before Trump when pollitics weren’t creeping in so much and bias didn’t have so much impact on the forums. I certainly got a lot of knowledge on physics and math, the ones who shared that knowledge with me you know who you are and I thank you for your time (many are gone from the forum) I will also remember with a smile our mutual efforts back when I was a regular on trying to enlighten the religious nuts, conspiracy theorists, racists, anti vaxers and other crack pots, both scientific merit and humour were a great thing for me in those discussions 🙂

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

...The concept of hitting and the concept of abuse differ in relevant ways...

Gotcha. I'm sure you have a well informed and well developed insight and opinion on this (as on everything) but I ask you to save it, put in in a file somewehere on your drive and paste it instead of one of your woke rants in a police brutality or rape thread when it comes up.
The abuse which JD suffered was psychological, the physical part was I'm sure irrelevant to him.

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

..The issue had to do with your initial claim about domestic abuse.

Could you explain? Has JD been abused outside of his home hence it's not domestic abuse hence it makes it ok somehow? Whats your issue? 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm okay with calling it abuse…

I’m really glad we finally plowed through this. 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would you mind telling the time on the video he begins talking about how she abused him in the marriage?

We clearly have a different idea what abuse is because I think every second of this clip is illustrating abuse JD suffered. 

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

How frequent was the hitting? How hard?

What led to it? Was it playful like a swat on the ass? Was this sexual? Had it been done before upon request? Was it violent? Was it provoked? Was it done in a rage?

Was it jab to the ribs? Punch to the kidneys? A slap to the face? A broken bone? Was it repeated or just once? Was it part of a larger pattern of inflicting fear and pain?

Was there any afterward acknowledgment of the wrong done or apologies offered? Was any contrition shown? A willingness not to do it again?

She admitted to hitting him.

She and he need to share a whole lot more details about what that means if you’re planning to continue equating and conflating that word with “abuse. “

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't require a separate trial, but Depp isn't trying to prove anything to me.

Thats right, the evidence in court took care of that.

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think that would support a physical abuse case against her. Verbal and psychological abuse are a lot harder to prove, but it sounds like her testimony in the defamation case might help Depp's abuse case... if he decides to pursue it.

So she admited in court to hitting him, failed to prove that he hit her and Johny Depp needs a seperate trial to prove to you that he was abused? How does that work exactly Phi or what am I missing here?

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re claiming the court confirmed he was abused. They did not. If you want them to, maybe you need a separate trial. 

Quote

@Phi for AllI'm not sure what you're accusing me of here. Depp won his case, but it was a case of defamation. That's the way the courts works (I guess, I've never been, even my jury duty gets cancelled). What more do you want? What does Depp want? Is he going to pursue a legal case of abuse? Without that, isn't it just our opinion that he was abused?

She admitted herself in court to hitting him. She also lied about him hitting her alongside lying about a specific type of makup she used trying to fabricate evidence of Johny Depp hitting her.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The verdict said that Heard defamed Depp in all the instances cited, and that Depp's lawyer defamed Heard in one instance. It's rock solid evidence of defamation of character, but they'd need to go through a different trial to make abuse charges stick, wouldn't they? 

I don't like that Depp drinks/drugs and then gets into situations like this, and I don't like that Heard thinks slapping and hitting are different things. They both seem culpable in this situation, and I wish we were talking about a better case to include in the public discourse regarding men who are victims of abuse. I think it's under reported because men aren't supposed to be that sensitive to emotional abuse (but we are!), and traditionally would be expected to stand up to physical abuse, but modern men are also more understanding than in the past, imo.

So if your wife would engage in manipulation and lies over a period of time which would result in you loosing your job and your good name, preventing you from finding a job in the future - if not abuse, what would you call this type of behaviour by Amber Heard? Johny Depp stated that he's grateful for getting his life back, why is it so hard to accept that he speaks the truth? She hit him (on record in court), she played long term games aimed at destroying his good name, his carier and propelling her own carrier, Disney droppped him from Pirates of the Caribean, the media stigmatized him for years. Now he is finding justice in court and you need a seperate trial and jury to tell you that he was abused? What would you call what has happened to JD then Phi, a "Misfortunate series of behaviours towards a man by a troubled woman" ?
FFS...
 

5 hours ago, geordief said:

First this,then

Back to school for me?

I guess so.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Pro Tip: As you appear to be new to posting on this site, the expectation here is that if you make a claim, you are expected to support it with links, documentation, etc. You cannot expect others to do your work for you.

On the contrary, I know that no amount of evidence will convince a mind which is already made up. The verdict in itself is the only evidence needed but it still eludes you.

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

You're leaving?  Are you quite sure?  You've only declared your departure 47 times, so how can we be sure this isn't just some stray impulse that will pass?  I think we need some large official-looking fonts, perhaps a notice from an attorney, maybe a taped press conference?  

I know: mail out refrigerator magnets.  

I said I will finish up with this thread I started.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

All that people here have asked is for you to share evidence regarding what the court actually said.

It’s strange that you lash out at everyone instead of answering that extremely simple straight forward question. 

The only person here with an agenda or axe to grind is apparently you. 

The evidence is clear, the verdict says it all. Thousands of pages of testimonys are available for you and the People to access.

5 hours ago, Arete said:

…financial losses Johnny Depp suffered because of the mean things his ex wife said about him to the Washington Post are terribly important…

Since I’m leaving and I don’t care about the downvotes for a longer while now, I can be frank and say what my heart tells me to say based on the trial evidence, the testimonies of all the witnesses and what the victim and the perpetrator said throughout the trial - have a great week Arete good luck. 

4 hours ago, Arete said:

…But I guess that kind of nuance wouldn't fit the narrative you're trying to paint. 

It’s a good thing that you ackowledge the nuance of Johny Depp getting his life back in the narrative youre trying to paint.

25 minutes ago, Arete said:

I think the fundamental issue is that the court case sought to examine the issue of defamation, not domestic violence/abuse. While Depp's quote clearly indicates he believes he was a victim of abuse (as does Heard), the trial itself was never intended to prove if Depp or Heard were the perpetrators/victims of abuse, but defamation. 

There is certainly an ongoing discussion about gender issues in domestic violence/abuse in the sociology literature - the gender based asymmetry of physical/psychological forms of abuse, gender bias in the likelihood of reporting abuse, etc. But the Depp/Heard case is tangential to that issue at best, simply because its focus was not abuse.

To apply a scientific analogy, if I do a Kirby Bauer disc diffusion assay on a stain of bacteria using an amoxicillin disc, it will tell me whether or not the bacteria is resistant to penicillin beta lactam antibiotics. It won't, however tell me anything about the resistance of that bacteria to carbapenem. The bacteria might or might not be resistant to carbapenem - but making an objective, evidence based determination about its carbapenem resistance would not be possible based on my test - I'd need use a carbapenem KB disc. 

Symmetry Arete. The abstract talks about gender symmetry not only gender assymetry. Your error would be meaningful but considering the context were in here and all I said about bias - its hilarious.

57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Or, OR, you started out misrepresenting the case as about abuse instead of defamation, and instead of switching to those points while continuing to explain your position, you started lashing out about pre-established views. I tried to tell you that you had several good points to make, but you were attacking those you thought were arguing against you, when they really seemed to want clarification and support.

I'm fairly convinced that Depp was a victim of physical and mental abuse by Heard, but I'm also a big fan of his, and not at all hers. Long before all this tabloid crap, I'd made up my mind about her supposed talent as an actress, so I felt like I had a heavy bias against her when the case came out. I know how I FEEL about her as a person, but that's based on her acting, and I know that's wrong. I didn't follow the case super closely, and I wanted actual evidence to support the way I feel about her. You seemed to feel the same way about Depp as I do, so for my part I was hoping you would bring something more concrete about Depp being victimized. I've been waiving my hands about this just fine on my own, so I'm sorry if I was trying to hold you to higher standards than I set for myself.

I’m not a fan of Johny Depp, I was never especially attracted to his acting, I don’t hate him and I don’t love him as an actor. As for Amber Heard I’m not sure if I even saw her in a movie and if I did I can’t remember her. I followed the trial very closely though and thoroughly because as I mentioned in my previous posts I think it’s an important shift point in todays world (alongside others) After following the countless witness testimonies, the testimonies of AH and JD, the testimonies of psychiatrists, psychologists, their friends and acquaintances all I can say is that I’m very glad Johny Depp feels he got his life back and was succesful at defending his name in this trial. 

12 minutes ago, NTuft said:

That was from me for marshalling the same elsewhere.

Your conduct in this thread has been despicable. The posting zapatos references somehow manages to mention irrelevant transgender issues and then accuse the staff of being poisoned by the PC woke virus? Hogwash. Unlike MigL I'd be fine if you would follow through on leaving.

If you were capable of reading with comprehension you’d know that this thread is my last one. Also its all hogwash to you because you werent here participating in countless discussions over the years on pollitics, ethics, transgender issues, PC issues, so things might sound irrelevant to you but thats because you know jack sh..t. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Personal attack. Perhaps you can address the content of the post rather than the motives of the poster.

 

Be careful not to choke on the downvotes zapatos, in reality they are unhealthy only for you.

On 6/4/2022 at 5:26 AM, MigL said:

Sorry Koti.
I do hope you choose to stay.
Your opinion has always been respected, if not always agreed with, by me.
I would hope you respect mine, even if you disagree with it.

 

It’s a combination of factors - changing the rules a couple years back to delete posts by the moderators, private message reading by the staff, the progressing pollitical and ideological bias blinding the science, its most definitely not this thread only, this seemed to have tipped the scale for me and I a am no longer benefiting from being here. I will finish up this thread and I will no longer be participating.

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Against my better I did take a look at the trial and while it has already been stated by other members before, the trial is in fact not about abuse, and as such an even worse example for the real issues outlined in the title than I thought it would be. 

The libel case really just means that the jury found Heard to have made false and defamatory statements against Depp with malicious intent. At the same time Heard also won a counterclaim against Depp (also for defamation). The big issue with such cases is that it is easy to use these as a strawman to dismiss real societal challenges by pointing at shitty behaviour of celebrities. 

Sure, poor Koti unknowingly resorted to strawman dissmissing the real societal challenges (like transgender inclusivness) and CharonY knows that JD hasn’t been abused because it doesn’t fit the f up framework that has been spoon fed on this forum for years, progressively.
It must already be 4 or 5 years since we had a discussion about „The Red Pill” the documentary about abused Fathers. You tried to dismantle the narrative portrayed in that documentary in a similar way youre trying to dismantle JD here by undermining and whiting out the facts by a methodical process which is completely unscientific - you set up a pre-etablished view and youre trying to put in the pieces of the puzzle in a way determined by that pre established view. The level is different but the mechanics are the same as talking to a religious nut, the difference is that a religious nut puts a scarf over his eyes and pretends not see the reality and you subtly and skillfuly move and puzzle the pieces using a broader skillset so that the final result fits your predetrrmined narrative. It’s not only you, most of the staff have been poisoned by the PC woke virus and my gripe isn’t emotional but its coming from countless posts and threads over the years. I wish we could all stick just to the science but its impossible, pollitics are creeping into everything these days and it pisses me off.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

You could’ve shared that without all the whiny childish vitriolic BS. You’re nothing if not consistent. 

 

Facepalm.

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Did he tell you that’s why he left, or is this another unfounded assumption you’re presenting as fact?

Maybe he took a new job that disallowed him from online forums, or had kids, or got sick and died.

Thousands of possible reasons as to why he is no longer an active poster here. What evidence do you have confirming it was due to the site culture?

Sad little man you are. I spoke to him a while ago outside of this biased to the bone place and he's fine, I'd presume much more fine than you are and ever will be.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

...In my opinion, he is an abuser, and when the British press said so, his libel suit against them failed.
I don't know why, given the facts presented, he won this lawsuit; if you are abusive, someone saying so is not libelious...

 

Oh god  

I don't know if you remember, there was a guy here called "KipIngram", a physics PhD working for IBM who left the forum quietly 6 or 7 years ago because he felt it was toxic and wasn't productive to stay. He was a really smart, warm person, a family dude. I feel I made a mistake of staying for too long, and it made me bitter.

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

...whom appears addicted to paramoralisms.

Now I know how to call half of the biased regulars on this forum, thanks for the new word as English is not my first language.