FOS discussion

[Orca]

The 'argument' was about 'traditional' Judaism, Christianity and Islam being not dissimilar to some of the views of Mr Tate and whether it would be right to ban such views. Many 'traditional' people of those faiths would indeed see women as inferior to men - for a mixture of scriptural and cultural reasons, no one would disagree with you on that. No one would also disagree that how scripture is interpreted is always going to be a source of contention. But the fact remains - many people with a 'traditional ' or 'conservative' understanding of those faiths think that women are inferior to men. But if we live in a free society then such views should be tolerated. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them or not challenge them. And no one is saying that progressive Jews, Christians, or Muslims would share those views.

I don’t know of any traditional or progressive Jews, Christians or Muslims who would share his views such as:

“Females are the ultimate status symbol… People think I’m running around with these h*es because I like sex. That’s nothing to do with the reason why I’m running around with these b*tches. I got these b*tches just so everyone knows who the don is.”

“Who’s got big booty cuties with their name tattooed on them? Tate. Only Tate.”

“If I walk in the club, me and Tristan and twenty-five b*tches, who’s the richest man in the club?… Females are the ultimate status symbol amongst elite players.”

“I go out and f*ck and I come back to her and I don’t care about her and I only love my girl. That’s not cheating, that’s exercise.”

“I was getting on a plane and I could see through the cockpit that a female was the pilot and I took a picture and I said, ‘most women I know can’t even park a car, why is a woman flying my plane?’ and they banned me.”
“If you’re a 55 kilo female, I will pick you up with one hand, by your t*tty.”

 

[gashonthenail]

I don’t know of any traditional or progressive Jews, Christians or Muslims who would share his views such as:

“Females are the ultimate status symbol… People think I’m running around with these h*es because I like sex. That’s nothing to do with the reason why I’m running around with these b*tches. I got these b*tches just so everyone knows who the don is.”

“Who’s got big booty cuties with their name tattooed on them? Tate. Only Tate.”

“If I walk in the club, me and Tristan and twenty-five b*tches, who’s the richest man in the club?… Females are the ultimate status symbol amongst elite players.”

“I go out and f*ck and I come back to her and I don’t care about her and I only love my girl. That’s not cheating, that’s exercise.”

“I was getting on a plane and I could see through the cockpit that a female was the pilot and I took a picture and I said, ‘most women I know can’t even park a car, why is a woman flying my plane?’ and they banned me.”
“If you’re a 55 kilo female, I will pick you up with one hand, by your t*tty.”

Are they really 'views'? or a young man playing the role of a bad boy? And the line about a woman flying a plane sounds like something most people would call a 'joke'. How much of any of that you quote was to be taken seriously, do you think? Humour should not and cannot be regulated. Good luck with that. Try to regulate children in the school playground...

 

[Orca]

Are they really 'views'? or a young man playing the role of a bad boy? And the line about a woman flying a plane sounds like something most people would call a 'joke'. How much of any of that you quote was to be taken seriously, do you think? Humour should not and cannot be regulated. Good luck with that. Try to regulate children in the school playground...

In his case they are views. There is an internet full of his views about women and their role in the world. But are they the same as views or behaviours or whatever you would chose to call them as said and carried out by current religious people. I wouldn’t think so.

I personally wouldn’t want to see teenage boys living with this kind of role model and as has been said by someone there are schools who have reported that they have boys treating girls badly based on their agreement with Andrew Tate’s views.

There is a difference I think when we are talking about adults being able to make up their own minds about these kind of things and freedom to speak but when young children are manipulated online with this kind of trash then I think there has to be a conversation regarding the safeguarding of children. Other examples include online pages that teach children to self harm with videos to teach them about suicide as a release. They do exist and there have been incidents because of that freedom to speak.

But I am tired now. I have seen you argue your points with other people on many things continually on this site to the point it just goes back and forth to no avail or consensus or agreement. From what I have seen I think you would argue to the death about a topic even if you didn’t believe it yourself. So I will leave you and just accept we will never agree on this.

I only became interested in this discussion because of the religious theological points made because theology is a topic of interest to me.

Hope all goes well for you and god bless

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

Well there have been others posting on this thread in agreement so when you speak for everyone on here you are factually incorrect.

I don't really give two sh*ts whether you think I am comical or not. It is a public forum and since it is about freedom of speech I don't really care whether you think I shouldn't be posting these things at all.

It was a discussion that started in relation to Morrissey being silenced and I , and others, on here don't buy that at all and so with it being a public forum, and a thread I started I assume you are perfectly fine to allow anyone to express their views.

The only thing you have contributed to this discussion is vitriolic personal attacks against me for saying what I have said and that my dear is just what it is, meaningless pap.

You statement that apparently I feel "unvalidated" is also just that, pap. I don't feel "unvalidated" at all and it bemuses me to read your angry rants. I don't care what you think and nothing you will say in your attempt to humiliate and belittle will have any effect on me whatsoever.

It is simply a discussion which has spread legs from silencing, to lies, to consumer choice, to trans gender issues, to religious treatment of women, to the way the courts and people treat people speaking up about abuse and that for me is important and it seems many others have been interested in this discussion because it is now on its 8th page of people talking about it. So not everyone is as disinterested as you seem to suggest as their high and mighty spokesperson. You could of course follow what you state is true in terms of nobody caring about any of this and just ignore it but that would be too say wouldn't it.

I didn’t say anywhere that I didn’t think you should post your views, and I didn’t try to “humiliate” you. Your post above just highlights even further to me how completely unhinged you sound.

Further, you didn’t “start” this thread - as it happens. But by nature of the fact that it’s a public thread on a public site, people will respond to your comments as they also wish.

There are former victims of sexual abuse and attack on this thread, myself for one, and I don’t see anything accurate, true, or of worth or substance in your endless ramblings. I see endless repetition that you don’t like Morrissey and don’t agree with him and that you’re no longer a fan and are going to throw away all your records (sob!).

But I’m the one who reminded you that you have free will, and that you live in the free world. So what’s the problem? We already know the problem is that you’re feeling unvalidated and that you can’t bring yourself to move on, because that is what you’re showing everyone, and that’s what your words and actions tell everyone. *shrug*.

There is still literally not one person as invested in this thread as you are, and you’re very much the only one talking in circles.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn’t say anywhere that I didn’t think you should post your views, and I didn’t try to “humiliate” you. Your post above just highlights even further to me how completely unhinged you sound.

Further, you didn’t “start” this thread - as it happens. But by nature of the fact that it’s a public thread on a public site, people will respond to your comments as they also wish.

There are former victims of sexual abuse and attack on this thread, myself for one, and I don’t see anything accurate, true, or of worth or substance in your endless ramblings. I see endless repetition that you don’t like Morrissey and don’t agree with him and that you’re no longer a fan and are going to throw away all your records (sob!).

But I’m the one who reminded you that you have free will, and that you live in the free world. So what’s the problem? We already know the problem is that you’re feeling unvalidated and that you can’t bring yourself to move on, because that is what you’re showing everyone, and that’s what your words and actions tell everyone. *shrug*.

There is still literally not one person as invested in this thread as you are, and you’re very much the only one talking in circles.

Let me help you :

"people feel sorry for you....I think the hilarious part is that you keep typing ....It’s beyond comical how many words you’ve typed"

Sure perfectly acceptable statements.

I don't care if you think the facts of a legal case available officially are not accurate or if you are stating that because you were sexually abused means you have some kind of super knowledge to state someone is factually incorrect. It doesn't.

I haven't rambled about my dislike of Morrissey. I don't hate anyone and have no invested hatred of anyone.

The whole point of my discussion was about whether Morrissey has been the victim of an orchestrated silencing plan as he is stating. It is all about that.

I don't feel unvalidated at all, far from it. Why on earth should I? I have no idea what validation you think I am looking for. I just made a point at the start of this thread which came from the London gig review and people just keep replying to me so the discussion interests me. Nothing to do with mental health issues re your "unhinged" point or any feeling of being unvalidated. Just an interesting democratic free discussion.

It has nothing to do with moving on. It is purely about having a discussion about a subject with regards to freedom of speech and silencing and whether Morrissey's view that 4 people have deliberately concocted a plan to silence him or whether it is just people choosing what to buy.

going to throw away all your records (sob!).

Very grown up. I'm not throwing out anything and certainly not sobbing. I'm very happy thanks.

I'm not showing anyone I can't move on. I don't need to move on. There is nothing to move on from. I'm just having a discussion about freedom to speak and silencing and how some circles think people's personal choices are claimed to be deliberate silencing if they don't like those personal choices. It's interesting and others obviously since we are now on page 10.

If you don't find it interesting and your only retort is childish exemplifications of toys being thrown cause someone dare to bore you then so be it. You could just be grown up and ignore it.

You mistake me for someone who gives a damn what you think.

 

[Malarkey]

You keep saying this. What story did he repeat that didn't happen?

The story he relayed in his comment absolutely happened.

But that isn't the point. Regardless of whether the story was true or not his comment was victim blaming.

A 14 year old didn't go to a hotel room with Spacey.

He said it didn't ring true.

ie. it didn't happen.

And it wasn't true.

And it didn't happen.

 

[Anonymous]

A 14 year old didn't go to a hotel room with Spacey.

He said it didn't ring true.

ie. it didn't happen.

And it wasn't true.

And it didn't happen.

I think you may need to read the facts.

A 14 year old did go into a bedroom with Spacey. Hotel/bedroom makes no difference

It did happen as admitted by Spacey in court.

Definitely true

 

[Anonymous]

I think you may need to read the facts.

A 14 year old did go into a bedroom with Spacey. Hotel/bedroom makes no difference

It did happen as admitted by Spacey in court.

Definitely true

I will correct this post. He apologised for his behaviour before the court case but in the court case he denied everything having been directed to do so by his legal team.

But there were plenty of witnesses that were in his apartment at the time for the party who verified Rapp was in Spacey's house.

But again this isn't the point. The point is Morrissey stating he didn't believe it because he didn't believe a 14 yr old would ever go into a bedroom with an adult without being aware what could happen.

 

[Malarkey]

I think you may need to read the facts.

A 14 year old did go into a bedroom with Spacey. Hotel/bedroom makes no difference

It did happen as admitted by Spacey in court.

Definitely true.

Saying a hotel room means he wasn't repeating the right story.

It didn't happen.

At all.

 

[Anonymous]

Saying a hotel room means he wasn't repeating the right story.

It didn't happen.

At all.

There was only one story at the time regarding Spacey and an abuse claim. Of course Morrissey was talking about the same story.

But you still miss the point.

It doesn't matter what story Morrissey was talking about. He stated that he didn't believe the abuse claimant because the boy was 14 and would have known what could happen if he went into a room with an adult.

It makes no difference whether the story was true or not. The reason he gives is because he didn't believe the abuse claimant for a ridiculous reason.

Spacey was in his house with Rabb, the abuse claimant. That is not disputed and was the only story in the media at the time Morrissey made his statement.

It did happen not matter how many times you keep saying it.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

You are arguing a different point to what was made re Tate.

That argument was about current religious practices being no different to the views of Andrew Tate and that I dispute.

What you are arguing about is whether practices in Jewish ancient times were similar to the views of Andrew Tate.

What I'm against is your original contention that "there is nothing in any of these religious texts that say what you state." I can't help it if the Hebrew bible was written "in Jewish ancient times," but it does contain ideas similar to the views of Andrew Tate. In it, women are chattel and subservient to men. How is that not Tate-ish?

No one disputes the horrific practices in relation to women but I dispute that modern Christian’s follow any rules or doctrine that dictate that these practices should be followed. The Catholic Church or any religion doesn’t force any woman to marry a rapist.

Please pay attention. I already conceded that the Catholic Church doesn't force a woman to marry her rapist. Why on earth would it? Do you not realize that Christians believe the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect? I don't know why you're repeating this absurdity.

As for Catholics, they're not a monolithic group, despite being ostensibly united by the papacy. You can certainly find Catholics these days who believe in a woman's subservience and subordination to her man. So-called "traditional Catholicism" is a fast-growing fringe, and it has emerged from the margins with such ultra-machismo and revanchist vigor that they've come onto the Vatican's radar, where Pope Francis has seen fit to try and quash them by abrogating their liturgy, the Latin Mass.

The traditional Catholic "manosphere" differs from Tate in that it doesn't promote wanton adultery, but it certainly relishes male dominance. The overlap between the "PUA" community and conservative Christianity is not negligible. Even the notorious alt-right misogynist red-piller "Roosh V" has transitioned to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Orca]

What I'm against is your original contention that "there is nothing in any of these religious texts that say what you state." I can't help it if the Hebrew bible was written "in Jewish ancient times," but it does contain ideas similar to the views of Andrew Tate. In it, women are chattel and subservient to men. How is that not Tate-ish?



Please pay attention. I already conceded that the Catholic Church doesn't force a woman to marry her rapist. Why on earth would it? Do you not realize that Christians believe the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect? I don't know why you're repeating this absurdity.

As for Catholics, they're not a monolithic group, despite being ostensibly united by the papacy. You can certainly find Catholics these days who believe in a woman's subservience and subordination to her man. So-called "traditional Catholicism" is a fast-growing fringe, and it has emerged from the margins with such ultra-machismo and revanchist vigor that they've come onto the Vatican's radar, where Pope Francis has seen fit to try and quash them by abrogating their liturgy, the Latin Mass.

The traditional Catholic "manosphere" differs from Tate in that it doesn't promote wanton adultery, but it certainly relishes male dominance. The overlap between the "PUA" community and conservative Christianity is not negligible. Even the notorious alt-right misogynist red-piller "Roosh V" has transitioned to Eastern Orthodoxy.

There are many points in your post here that are just factually incorrect and you confuse your points of traditional Catholicism and the likes of the Latin mass. I assume you just pull these points from google.

Pope Francis hasn’t tried to do anything with the Latin mass. Actually I’ll correct that. The Latin mass has been said for centuries, it never stopped. If you go to the Vatican or many Catholic parishes you can hear the Latin high mass most Sundays including with the pope as celebrant with all the regalia of incense and religious pageantry.

What you, or your google search, are trying to say relates to pre Vatican council II masses and the way the mass was carried out which was stopped as part of Vatican II. But Latin masses in themselves have never been stoppped. The ruling of that Vatican II edict around the way the mass is said was relaxed actually by the pope a while back and many churches celebrate the Latin mass in the old fashioned way. Has nothing but do with the role of women. It’s just people craving some old fashioned, very long, choral, masses where the priest orates facing the alter at the front of the church rather than facing the people.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

There are many points in your post here that are just factually incorrect and you confuse your points of traditional Catholicism and the likes of the Latin mass. I assume you just pull these points from google.

Pope Francis hasn’t tried to do anything with the Latin mass. Actually I’ll correct that. The Latin mass has been said for centuries, it never stopped. If you go to the Vatican or many Catholic parishes you can hear the Latin high mass most Sundays including with the pope as celebrant with all the regalia of incense and religious pageantry.

What you, or your google search, are trying to say relates to pre Vatican council II masses and the way the mass was carried out which was stopped as part of Vatican II. But Latin masses in themselves have never been stoppped. The ruling of that Vatican II edict around the way the mass is said was relaxed actually by the pope a while back and many churches celebrate the Latin mass in the old fashioned way. Has nothing but do with the role of women. It’s just people craving some old fashioned, very long, choral, masses where the priest orates facing the alter at the front of the church rather than facing the people.

I was a traditional Catholic for many years, so I can tell you, I'm not googling. Your naïveté is showing. Traditional Catholicism has to do with a lot more than just the liturgy: it criticizes Vatican II not just for its liturgical novelties, but for its doctrinal progressivism as well. It is a fact that Francis has abrogated the permissions for the Latin Mass given by his predecessor Benedict XVI in 2007. This doesn't mean you can't still find a Latin Mass anymore, but it means that the permission for new Latin Mass parishes and ordinary grants is rescinded. Francis is trying to starve the movement of oxygen. The motu proprio is Traditionis Custodes, if you want the particulars. It's a cheeky title: Francis is invoking his papal authority to inform these upstarts that he alone will decide what tradition is. It recalls the famous declaration of Pius IX: "Tradition? I am tradition!"

But we are really getting into the weeds here. I can assure you there is a traditional Catholic "manosphere" that takes a dim view of women. Do you need evidence?

 

[Malarkey]

There was only one story at the time regarding Spacey and an abuse claim. Of course Morrissey was talking about the same story.

But you still miss the point.

It doesn't matter what story Morrissey was talking about. He stated that he didn't believe the abuse claimant because the boy was 14 and would have known what could happen if he went into a room with an adult.

It makes no difference whether the story was true or not. The reason he gives is because he didn't believe the abuse claimant for a ridiculous reason.

Spacey was in his house with Rabb, the abuse claimant. That is not disputed and was the only story in the media at the time Morrissey made his statement.

It did happen not matter how many times you keep saying it.

Morrissey stated that the story he heard from a source he didn't mention about a 14 year old he didn't name didn't ring true because he didn't think a 14 year old would have occasion to go to a hotel room - so the story sounded untrue.

In fact, no 14 year old went into a hotel room so the story was untrue.

On a side note - there were two stories going round in the media at the time & Spacey lived in a studio appartment when he was 26 so didn't have a bedroom.

 

[Orca]

I was a traditional Catholic for many years, so I can tell you, I'm not googling. Your naïveté is showing. Traditional Catholicism has to do with a lot more than just the liturgy: it criticizes Vatican II not just for its liturgical novelties, but for its doctrinal progressivism as well. It is a fact that Francis has abrogated the permissions for the Latin Mass given by his predecessor Benedict XVI in 2007. This doesn't mean you can't still find a Latin Mass anymore, but it means that the permission for new Latin Mass parishes and ordinary grants is rescinded. Francis is trying to starve the movement of oxygen. The motu proprio is Traditionis Custodes, if you want the particulars. It's a cheeky title: Francis is invoking his papal authority to inform these upstarts that he alone will decide what tradition is. It recalls the famous declaration of Pius IX: "Tradition? I am tradition!"

But we are really getting into the weeds here. I can assure you there is a traditional Catholic "manosphere" that takes a dim view of women. Do you need evidence?

You have the whole thing confused. The fact you state you were a “traditional Catholic” for many years is itself a very odd thing for any Catholic to say.

Please enlighten me, when you were a “traditional Catholic” what did you do that distinguished you from a non traditional Catholic?

 

[bhops]

That was disgusting and I hold my head in shame for what happened in my country, while our ghoulish goony MSM cheered it on. I think I'll move to Sweden, hopefully Sea Salt will put my up for awhile in a plot twist no-one saw coming. And to pay my way I'll give him boxing lessons in the back garden

Do you know how to cook and clean? On second thought, f*** it. You can have the house and the garden in Sweden, I’m permanently relocating to Greece (although, surprisingly Sweden really has its shit together when it comes to certain issues like the trans agenda and Covid, obviously).

To summarise, I have OCD when it comes to cleanliness and am a whizz in the kitchen, so in essence I am the perfect house guest.

 

[Anonymous]

Morrissey stated that the story he heard from a source he didn't mention about a 14 year old he didn't name didn't ring true because he didn't think a 14 year old would have occasion to go to a hotel room - so the story sounded untrue.

In fact, no 14 year old went into a hotel room so the story was untrue.

On a side note - there were two stories going round in the media at the time & Spacey lived in a studio appartment when he was 26 so didn't have a bedroom.

That is completely untrue.


Morrissey said the boy was 14 in his statement.


Spacey didn’t live in a studio apartment at all. At 26 he had an apartment in Manhattan where the party was where the 14 year old claimed he was abused.

The fact a party took place when Spacey was 26 in his Manhattan apartment and the fact that a 14 year old Rapp was at that party as invited by Spacey are not questioned and are facts. There were not two stories about Spacey and a 14 year old at his Manhattan apartment at that time.

You keep saying Morrissey thought it was untrue but you miss the reason Morrissey stated he thought it was untrue and that was in his words because he would think it unlikely a 14 year old boy would go into a room with an adult without being aware that something sexual might happen.

It is only in that reason that Morrissey provided where the problem lies.

Morrissey then claimed he had never made such a statement and stated der Spiegel was misquoting him and then Der Spiegel released the recording of the interview and the whole world could hear that in fact he had absolutely made that statement.

There could have been no other story that Morrissey was referring to.

You are grasping on straws because no matter what , even if, it was proven without doubt, you will never allow yourself to think Morrissey has ever said anything wrong ever. That is a cult.

You have gone from saying Morrissey thought it was untrue because a 14 year old would have had a chaperone on set, when it was at a party at Spacey's apartment, to now saying it is all untrue because it was a studio flat. I'm glad you are not a lawyer.

But again it makes no difference if it was in a flat, a hotel, a car, in a toilet, on set, in a club, bar, on a train or plane. When a person has the courage to speak up about being abused when he was 14, for someone to immediately dismiss it on the basis it seems untrue because a 14 year old would have know what could happen by being in a room alone with an adult is victim blaming. The entire issue is with the reason Morrissey gave as to why he didn't believe the person making the abuse claim.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

You have the whole thing confused. The fact you state you were a “traditional Catholic” for many years is itself a very odd thing for any Catholic to say.

Please enlighten me, when you were a “traditional Catholic” what did you do that distinguished you from a non traditional Catholic?

Why do you think it's so odd? Traditional Catholicism is essentially just a sectarian movement within the Church that doesn't accept the reforms of the 1960s. If you're genuinely interested, I could explain to you their theory of how a Catholic can recognize the pope yet resist his teachings. I no longer think this theory is any good; nevertheless, it's there, and traditional Catholics are convinced by it. But because the theory is so tenuous, a splinter sect has emerged. These are the sedevacantists: traditional Catholics who believe that almost the entire hierarchy apostatized at Vatican II, that there hasn't been a valid pope since Pius XII, and that they and their priests and bishops are the remnant Church. Sedevacantists stand in relation to the Vatican like the Russian Old Believers stand in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. Each side excommunicates the other.

The best-known traditional Catholic group is the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the 1970s to form priests who would offer the Latin Mass exclusively and preach the pre-Vatican II faith unadulterated. You can read their mission statement on their website, and they also have a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Peace be with you.

 

[Redacted]

You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
As a general rule I try to avoid calling human beings scum.

Since you are not anything resembling a human being, we're good.
You have failed to make your case. no need to reply.

 

[Malarkey]

That is completely untrue.


Morrissey said the boy was 14 in his statement.


Spacey didn’t live in a studio apartment at all. At 26 he had an apartment in Manhattan where the party was where the 14 year old claimed he was abused.

The fact a party took place when Spacey was 26 in his Manhattan apartment and the fact that a 14 year old Rapp was at that party as invited by Spacey are not questioned and are facts. There were not two stories about Spacey and a 14 year old at his Manhattan apartment at that time.

You keep saying Morrissey thought it was untrue but you miss the reason Morrissey stated he thought it was untrue and that was in his words because he would think it unlikely a 14 year old boy would go into a room with an adult without being aware that something sexual might happen.

It is only in that reason that Morrissey provided where the problem lies.

Morrissey then claimed he had never made such a statement and stated der Spiegel was misquoting him and then Der Spiegel released the recording of the interview and the whole world could hear that in fact he had absolutely made that statement.

There could have been no other story that Morrissey was referring to.

You are grasping on straws because no matter what , even if, it was proven without doubt, you will never allow yourself to think Morrissey has ever said anything wrong ever. That is a cult.

You have gone from saying Morrissey thought it was untrue because a 14 year old would have had a chaperone on set, when it was at a party at Spacey's apartment, to now saying it is all untrue because it was a studio flat. I'm glad you are not a lawyer.

But again it makes no difference if it was in a flat, a hotel, a car, in a toilet, on set, in a club, bar, on a train or plane. When a person has the courage to speak up about being abused when he was 14, for someone to immediately dismiss it on the basis it seems untrue because a 14 year old would have know what could happen by being in a room alone with an adult is victim blaming. The entire issue is with the reason Morrissey gave as to why he didn't believe the person making the abuse claim.

He said it sounded untrue because he didn't think a 14 year old would go into a hotel room.

Rapp didn't say he was in a hotel room - he said he was in a bedroom. Spacey didn't have a separate bedroom - he had a studio apartment. Which is why Spacey won the court case.