20 minutes ago, swansont said:

No link, and nothing about these statements point to him being the victim abuse. They more likely refer to the defamation from her de-facto accusation that he abused her, which is what the trial was about. Especially "the jury gave me my life back" which sounds like the vindication of libel being confirmed. IOW, it's equivalent to "she lied, I was impacted by that lie and the jury confirmed that" which is not in any way acknowledging or suggesting he was the victim of domestic abuse.  

 

„Pitiful” is the right word here as opposed to how you used it a few posts back. I’m outta here.

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm done here. You're wasting my time.

Likewise.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That Depp was the subject of abuse. 

I can't believe how obtuse you are being. I have no skin in this particular game (establishing that Depp was a victim of abuse, and no, being defamed is not automatically the same thing), so I will bow out. If Depp wants to pursue charges for being abused he is free to do so; unlike many victims he's not trapped by lacking resources to break free of his alleged abuser.

I’m not obtusive, I genuinly wanted to establish which exact assertion,  now that I know, the answer is the evidence provided during the month long trial, the $15 mln he got awarded by court and his final statement:

“Six years ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed. All in the blink of an eye”

“And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled… I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up.”

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

For Christ's sake koti, read what you posted! You have been abusive to just about everyone in this thread.

" a manipulative predator"

 "a twisted thought process"

"trying to bleach out"

"Or should I have questioned your integrity..."

"What is pitiful is the way youre portraying this, I csn only pitty your lack of empathy"

 

So what has happened in this thread by me is the extent of what Amber Heard did to Johnny Depp? Perhaps you should sue me for $50,000,000.

You seem to have lost all ability to make rational, evidence-based arguments.

They were all rebuttals.
 

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The one about AH abusing JD. I think evidence was asked for to determine what kind of abuse you were talking about, but instead you went with the Argument from Incredulity again, in essence arguing that you can't believe we've made up our minds to ignore the abuse she put him through. You're Begging the Question also, so you're raising all sorts of red flag pushback. Oddly, I think there are plenty of members who would love to acknowledge that you have a point, and that abuse of men is a problem that needs to be addressed, but they want to make sure the reasoning is sound, and that any conclusions were arrived at with little to no jumping.

He was awarded 15 mln dollars by the jury in a defamation suit, abuse doesn't have to be physical and in Johny Depps case it certainly was psychological as the pushing/hitting is nothing compared to destrying someones reputation/work/life like AH did to JD.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's not a fact just because you say it is. That's not what a fact is, that's an assertion. Maybe it has merit, maybe not. One should investigate

You were asked to provide evidence to back up your assertion. You have not done so. All you've done is repeat the assertion, which does not make it a fact.

Which assertion ?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

So once again, do you have evidence of your claims, and if you do, please post it rather than just repeating the allegation.

Evidence for which claims? Not like it matters because your mind is immune to the fact that Johny Depp was abused by a woman but since you ask please be specific.

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

Thus far the only victims of abuse here are those who are attempting to address your OP.

I’m trying to bring light to an issue which is close to me due to my own experiences which is elaborate and hard to counter psychological abuse which was perpetrated by Amber Heard. You trying to paint me as abusive is not much different to what she has been doing, think about it. 

Fortunately, there seems to be a shift globaly in media and social media, heck even Netflix is moving away from its previous stance by issuing a statement which tell emplyees to f off if they cant cope with working on projects they disagree on. I feel all this is interconnected and it seems that the days of promoting hate for men, harmful racial/gender stances are all coming to a stand still and this trial is having a part in it. Doesn’t seeing justice being done make you happy zapatos? 

14 hours ago, swansont said:

 

I will note that others have asked you for evidence of JD being such a victim, but I don't see where you've provided any.

Amber Heard has admitted herself on tape in court that she has abused Johny Depp. 

26 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If the subject is domestic violence against men, I'm interested, because that's a real problem and real people are not only suffering but also passing on a pattern of toxic relationships to their children.

If the subject is the poor little movie star whose only recourse against his terrible wife is a team of 8 attorneys with all the resources of an international law firm, unlimited funds and an army of social media connected fans, I lost interest.

So if the victim is rich its all good, got it. Bravo Peterkin.

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The situation was pitiful.

 

What is pitiful is the way youre portraying this, I csn only pitty your lack of empathy towards a victim of abuse. 

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Gee, that's nice of you. I said in my first post I didn't follow the trial but thought it was a libel case.

Then swansont provided the following:
 

a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” 

 

If you cannot be bothered to support your own claim in your own thread, then don't question my integrity when I question your claim.

I havent questioned your integrity, I clearly said that its probably the former (that you haven’t listened to the verdict) Or should I have questioned your integrity and youre convinced that the victim, Johny Depp should be blamed?

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not in this trial it wasn't. Can you please tell me where it was confirmed by court and jury that he is a victim of domestic violence? 

Can’t seem to find a text version of the complex verdict which I watched live yesterday. The jury awarded JD a „yes” in at least 30 different points, each or most of those points are cases where Amber Heard abuses JD psychologically in a very malicious way. You either havent heard and understood the verdict or youre trying to bleach out what AH has been proven to do him. I assume its the former?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes, but as you seem to be expressing pity for him, you seem to agree that this is pathetic.

 

Youre gonna need to explain how you came into this conclusion as I trully have no idea what kind of a twisted thought process brought you to this. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Where does it stand?

It stands right in the middle of what you should be doing - supporting a victim of abuse. Confirmed by court & jury and a verdict.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How best to start including men who are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse ?

Not with those two people as the standard-bearers for their sex.

Domestic violence is a serious issue. This is a frivolous (if pathetic) celebrity lawsuit.

“And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled… I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up.”

— Johnny Depp
 

Pathetic seems to be a subjective term, doesn’t it.

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

This is the second trial that J Depp has taken part in.
He brought a libel lawsuit against a British paper that had accused him of being a wife abuser, and it was thrown out as the evidence agreed with the accusation.
This trial was more along 'entertainment' rather than fact finding.
I guarantee that she appeals the judgment and will not pay anything.

Both came off looking like spoilt idiots, but this is Hollywood, all publicity is good, and gets you movie roles.

I think Johny Depp brought up this lawsuit to clear up his name and that is already happening, I think the money he gets from her is secondary for him, he will be able to make much more than he can get in court once the industry will un-blacklist him and he'll be able to get major roles again. I agree that this trial was grotesque but the fact that JD is a victim of abuse by a manipulative predator still stands.

I think todays jury verdict will have and already is having an impact on how we perceive victims of domestic abuse especially in the main stream media. The shift has been already seen in the last weeks during the trial, Amber Heard getting stripped of her role in Aquaman 2 and Johny Depp getting a role proposal in the new Sherlock Holmes movie. The 15 mln dollars she has to pay for defamation seems a nice adition to JD case but certainly the main gole has been achieved by the Johny Depp team besides that. What do you think? 

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

@koti Given how incomplete our information is on all these people, I think it would be impossible to say who to believe.  Family fights are often ugly and loaded with manipulation.  There is a reason that some things end up in a courtroom - just accepting a bunch of "he said" and "she said" statements as a full account in hardly enough to make a rational decision.

Also, as someone who has done counseling, I know that people may be "manipulative" because they have very little power over their own lives and can find no other leverage to make their needs known.  It's entirely possible that the parents, if they had listened more and been more receptive to Ariel's feelings, would not have triggered quite so much manipulation.  

 

Absolutely, I agree. But the fact that the parents failed at being receptive enough to their childs feelings and it all resulting in a spectacular sht storm has nothing to do with the fact that in this case, the child not transgender and is not going to transition because shes just playing a game. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. 

Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee.

Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

Last Saturday we went to a barbeque at my buddies house, lots of old faces from highschool/college there and some new ones. Me and my partner ended up talking to new wife of my firend, shes 33 hes 48. After a while she opened up when she heard I knew her husband since 1990, apparently her step daughter and his daughter is now "Ariel" (17) who sued "his" parents (unfortunately this is the ridiculous law here) in order to transition from a she into a him. The 33 year old step Mom was telling us stories which are really hard to repeat - mind games, emails sent to her and lawyers on CC, extreme manipulation in order to get attention and gain financial and/or emotional gains. The transition according to this 33 year old step Mom is a complete hoax and it is brining extreme pain both emotionally and financially to at least 3 families and this step Mom, my friends new wife is on the verge of calling it quits. So who do we believe iNow, a 33 year old woman on a virge of mental breakdown needing therapy on a daily basis or a 17 year old spoilt, manipulative brat? I think I remember you said in one of the threads few years back that we should believe all women.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, 

In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy.

But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people.

   

Ha ha,

Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place.

How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? 

Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society.  

Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. 

I had a discussion at work yesterday,

I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves.

My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.  

So this someone took offence that you did not take offence to someone not offending you? Thats some next level stuff.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How can you make such a biased claim, not back it up, and then claim you depend on scientific method?

Nice...

If anyone doesn't assume a gender bias and instead see an obvious physical requirement they must be racist as well...

Obviously I won't ask for a link or "references" for such crap.

 

 

 

Comments like CharonY’s are ridiculous and grotesque, borderline same level of ridiculousness that comes from the extreme right entourage. But the fact that this political brainwash dressed in science comes from a bilogy PhD is just plain scary.

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I knew someone would bite at that apple. 😂 

Never said mine was the only correct POV. Thanks for playing, though. 

My pleasure. Watching the bias train for too long makes me want to comment, I gotta work on that.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

As we did in the gay marriage threads, and the universal healthcare threads, and the transgendered athlete threads, and the climate change threads, and the evolution threads, and the 9/11 truther threads, etc.

IMO it’s not a waste of cognitive skills to stand up tenaciously and with persistence for what’s right and defend shared principles in the face of those who want us to question whether or not facts even exist or if our neighbors and school teachers are grooming young children for sexual exploit and need to be exterminated. 

Sure, because evolution, climate change and religion subjects equate to lesbian feminist activist professors of philosophy geting driven out of universities through witch hunts led by disturbed red haired morons who want to destroy peoples lives because they feel offended. Or young african american women who stigmatize Ketanji Brown nomination for being racist from the begining. 
Oh, and if anything uncomfortable will be left on the site after all the discussions run their course we can sweep it under the carpet by deleteing it right?

BTW, I wonder how Sirona is doing, is she already a single Mom or is she still working on her way to becoming one? 

3 minutes ago, MSC said:

@SenseiNo doxxing please. I don't know what the laws are where you are, but besides that it just comes off as intimidation and good points raised need not be given with threats. Let the truth speak for itself. Koti is free to speak his views here where the only fear ought to be fear of criticism. Something we all have to deal with in life and on this forum. Silencing people is what dictators do when someone speaks the truth. It's the sort of thing Vladimir Putin does. 

The best way to counter Putin, is by encouraging democratic free speech. That's what he fears the most. You know this Sensei. I get that you're probably also just joking, but the threat of doxxing alone is not cool. Not a good joke to make. 

Oh boo hoo, leave him alone, let him incriminate himself. swansont isn’t helping either by deleteing sensei’s posts. Its a good thing that the forum has a backup which can always be accessed through a lawyer.

29 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...including the current GPS location to within a few meters... ?

That’ll not be enough, when you post my PESEL number which you said you have, this will be when the fun starts for you. 

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

..no sane and serious person cares about this nonsense when Ukraine is under attack..

I’m really looking forward to you elaborating on this along with publishing more of my personal info on the forum. I really do. 

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What dishonesty? This thread is entitled “Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?” 

Why is it dishonest to assume we’re discussing what’s in the title? And not something else brought up later (which one might take as a bait-and-switch, which would be a bad-faith argument)

 

I lost all desire for discussing this with you.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Jordan Peterson is a young black woman? I apologize; I was thinking of a different Jordan Peterson. You did refer to her as a he, though.

I don’t think it was affirmative action at all; please establish that it was.

Gotcha. I don’t know why I expected more than the ususal dishonesty when dealing with political subjects on this forum, I’m gullible in this case.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you can point to a list of objective qualifications for SCOTUS, that would go a long way toward establishing that it’s not possible to justify this decision.

edit: I’ll save you some time - you won’t find such a list in the Constitution  

The point of this thread are concerns that a young black woman expresses towards the affirmative action involved in nominating another black woman to supre court. Shes concerned that all people involved are essencially striped og their dignity through the actions taken. With all due respect swansont but you don’t give a s..t about these points she’s raising which I’m showing here so don’t expect me to follow your deviation from the core subject here.