FOS discussion

[gashonthenail]

And here we get to the truth of the matter, your honest opinion, which has nothing to do with Morrissey's freedom of speech. Sympathizing with a sex offender isn't really any different than being a sex offender. Spacey is facing more sexual assault charges in the UK, I'm sure he will appreciate your sympathy and support, he's been criminally charged.
And this little gem, totally innocent, a victim -
A judge in Los Angeles this summer approved an arbitrator's decision to order Spacey to pay $30.9 million to the makers of "House of Cards" for violating his contract by sexually harassing crew members.

Again, your comments have nothing to do with your allegation that Morrissey has been stripped of his freedom of speech

I was being intentionally provocative by stating that Spacey was the victim in this case. I know that's a very uncomfortable thing to say - but it is factual. Spacey was the victim of a false allegation in this specific case.
I can't comment in any way on any of the criminal charges made against Spacey. His guilt or innocence will be for the courts to determine. If he's guilty - then he should answer for his behaviour before the law. He certainly shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Again, being intentionally provocative - both Spacey and Weinstein very quickly became figures of hate and opprobrium long before any courtroom trial. Let's be brutally honest why - because Spacey fitted the homophobic stereotype of the gay man who's a threat to teenage boys, and Weinstein fitted the anti-semitic stereotype of the Ugly Jew who's a threat to virgins. These tropes run very deep.
Again, when it comes to freedom of speech - it's the consequences that are important. I don't think anyone should be burned at the stake for speaking freely - metaphorically or literally. I'm not religious so I really try to avoid making moral judgments about people's views and opinions. To me all views and opinions are worth hearing - because my views and opinions might be wrong. Very happy though to make judgments about behaviour and actions. I'm a humanist, so respect for life and liberty are part of my ethical outlook on life. But if we restrict views and opinions then as a human race we really are f***ed. There is no progress without people challenging what we all think is 'true' and 'right'. Many advances of human progress started off by being seen as 'false' and 'wrong'. Banning slavery is a good example - that took several hundred years to be accepted. And that's before we even get into the subject of whether we should restrict views and opinions because they are 'offensive'. That is the most subjective criterion of all and I don't think should be part of any sensible adult's outlook on life.

 

[Redacted]

I was being intentionally provocative by stating that Spacey was the victim in this case. I know that's a very uncomfortable thing to say - but it is factual. Spacey was the victim of a false allegation in this specific case.

Nah, you just got called out for the apologist you are, your post, which I cut short is just full of excuses. You seem to actually like sex offenders. Spacey is not a victim, that is not how it works. You are truly clueless.
A jury verdict in favor of the defendant does not mean the allegations are false, it means the burden of proof was not met. I have access to every single piece of paper in this case.
You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
But, I will ask again, how does this infringe upon Morrissey's freedom of speech?

 

[gashonthenail]

And the discussion reminded me of this scene

Such a classic movie.
Stoning to death is such an interesting historical practice. It is kind of shocking that it was practised by many cultures for centuries. But even more interesting is to ask if it is still practised now - but metaphorically speaking of course. One of the principles of group dynamics is that all groups - whether that's a group of school children or a group of Buddhist monks - seek out the weakest member of the group and try to destroy them because they are viewed as a threat to the group. And, of course, that same process can happen at the level of society. Society is just a big group after all, nothing more and nothing less. The desire to stone people metaphorcialy is still very much with us from what I can see. Indeed, as religious belief has waned in the West, moralising zeal about stamping out wickedness and sin seems to have increased, not decreased, only now we give non-religious words to these old fashioned concepts - now we want to stamp out 'racism' and 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' to make us all more pure.

 

[Anonymous]

I was being intentionally provocative by stating that Spacey was the victim in this case. I know that's a very uncomfortable thing to say - but it is factual. Spacey was the victim of a false allegation in this specific case.
I can't comment in any way on any of the criminal charges made against Spacey. His guilt or innocence will be for the courts to determine. If he's guilty - then he should answer for his behaviour before the law. He certainly shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Again, being intentionally provocative - both Spacey and Weinstein very quickly became figures of hate and opprobrium long before any courtroom trial. Let's be brutally honest why - because Spacey fitted the homophobic stereotype of the gay man who's a threat to teenage boys, and Weinstein fitted the anti-semitic stereotype of the Ugly Jew who's a threat to virgins. These tropes run very deep.
Again, when it comes to freedom of speech - it's the consequences that are important. I don't think anyone should be burned at the stake for speaking freely - metaphorically or literally. I'm not religious so I really try to avoid making moral judgments about people's views and opinions. To me all views and opinions are worth hearing - because my views and opinions might be wrong. Very happy though to make judgments about behaviour and actions. I'm a humanist, so respect for life and liberty are part of my ethical outlook on life. But if we restrict views and opinions then as a human race we really are f***ed. There is no progress without people challenging what we all think is 'true' and 'right'. Many advances of human progress started off by being seen as 'false' and 'wrong'. Banning slavery is a good example - that took several hundred years to be accepted. And that's before we even get into the subject of whether we should restrict views and opinions because they are 'offensive'. That is the most subjective criterion of all and I don't think should be part of any sensible adult's outlook on life.

Can you explain from what you are saying how you can state that Morrissey has been silenced from expressing his opinions?

No one, no court or Jury, has stated that the allegation against Spacey was false. They are your words.

He was not charged for a criminal court because the statute of limitations had been passed. That doesn't equate to innocence.

You appeared for a civil hearing re compensation for a battery complaint. The jury in that case concluded Rapp did not prove Spacey “touched a sexual or intimate part” of Rapp.

That also doesn't equate to any statement that Rapp was lying. What happened is that Spacey was lifted in the air by Spacey and put down onto a bed and Spacey then lay beside him and partially lay over Rapp's body.

I repeat if that had been a 14 year old girl I think the view of the Jury would probably have been different.

None of the existing outcomes by any legal means have stated the allegation by Rapp was false or that abuse had not been committed.

Your point re the homosexual stereotype of a gay man being a threat to teenage boys is your opinion and has no legal standing in what Rapp said and indeed what Spacey admitted he did and apologised for.

An adult gay man inviting a teenage boy to his bedroom and lifting him onto his bed and then lie on top of him is not right.
An adult straight man inviting a teenage girl to his bedroom and lifting her onto his bed an then lie on top of her is not right.

It has nothing to do with him being the victim of homophobia.

No court has said it didn't happen and in fact Spacey said it did happen but denied it was sexual and apologised for his behaviour.

 

[Anonymous]

Such a classic movie.
Stoning to death is such an interesting historical practice. It is kind of shocking that it was practised by many cultures for centuries. But even more interesting is to ask if it is still practised now - but metaphorically speaking of course. One of the principles of group dynamics is that all groups - whether that's a group of school children or a group of Buddhist monks - seek out the weakest member of the group and try to destroy them because they are viewed as a threat to the group. And, of course, that same process can happen at the level of society. Society is just a big group after all, nothing more and nothing less. The desire to stone people metaphorcialy is still very much with us from what I can see. Indeed, as religious belief has waned in the West, moralising zeal about stamping out wickedness and sin seems to have increased, not decreased, only now we give non-religious words to these old fashioned concepts - now we want to stamp out 'racism' and 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' to make us all more pure.

"The desire to stone people metaphorcialy is still very much with us from what I can see"

Including the stoning of people claiming they were abused.

 

[gashonthenail]

Nah, you just got called out for the apologist you are, your post, which I cut short is just full of excuses. You seem to actually like sex offenders. Spacey is not a victim, that is not how it works. You are truly clueless.
A jury verdict in favor of the defendant does not mean the allegations are false, it means the burden of proof was not met. I have access to every single piece of paper in this case.
You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
But, I will ask again, how does this infringe upon Morrissey's freedom of speech?

You could say the same about any trial, civil or criminal. Many people walk free from court not necessarily because they are innocent, but because there wasn't enough evidence. But legally that means there is no case against them and they have no stain on their record. I did use the word technically Spacey is the victim in this case. I was being intentionally provocative, as I said. Of course I wouldn't actually call him a victim. And of course I have sympathy for Mr Rapp. I don't think he was malicious in his allegation. I think his troubled past was probably much more the driving factor. But the jury decided the allegation probably did not happen. If Spacey was a black man and the person making the allegation was a white girl from Alabama - would you object so strongly to the idea that Spacey was technically the victim in this case?
I'm not defending Weinstein and have never defended Weinstein in any of my posts. Weinstein was convicted of rape. Coercing someone into sex is abhorrent.
The subject of the Der Spiegel interview wasn't introduced into the thread by me. It was introduced by Mr Angry Anonymous when he suggested that Moz was an apologist for paedophilia - which I felt was an absurd suggestion. It's just as absurd to suggest he was an apologist for Weinstein. As Malarkey has pointed out, Morrissey doesn't mention Weinstein at all in the Der Spiegel interview.

 

[gashonthenail]

Nah, you just got called out for the apologist you are, your post, which I cut short is just full of excuses. You seem to actually like sex offenders. Spacey is not a victim, that is not how it works. You are truly clueless.
A jury verdict in favor of the defendant does not mean the allegations are false, it means the burden of proof was not met. I have access to every single piece of paper in this case.
You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
But, I will ask again, how does this infringe upon Morrissey's freedom of speech?

You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
As a general rule I try to avoid calling human beings scum. No matter who they are or what they have done. But I have to ask - would you call the lawyer who defended him scum as well? The whole legal system would collapse if we all shared your enlightened approach.

 

[Aubrey McFate]

I was talking about texts that state a woman’s purpose in life is to pleasure a man. You mentioned the word subservience which is something different. You are misunderstanding what I have said.

You are googling for passages that you think prove your argument. The passages you come up with are consistently quoted by atheists who don’t understand the theology and historic social conditions around them.

So the one regarding rape isn’t the whole passage consideration. The reality in fact is dependent on the actual act and who was raped.

The Old Testament clearly states that if a man rapes a married woman then that man is to be put to death. Not really following your idea that men are dominant.

For an act where an unmarried woman is raped it isn’t as simple as you state where the woman is forced to marry the rapist.

What it actually says is that the man has to talk with the woman’s father and give money and be told to marry the woman and look after her “because he hath humbled her” Deuteronomy 22.

To understand that ancient text you have to look at the social situation at that time. When an unmarried woman was raped she was often considered not suitable for marriage any more by possible suitors and many victims because of that lived in extreme poverty and often had to turn to prostitution in order to survive.

So the idea behind the idea of a rapist marrying the victim is not that the woman is being forced to do so but to force the man to look after the woman for the rest of his life and the only legal way to do that at the time was through marriage.

An unmarried woman not a virgin was looked upon with shame and was unable to marry so ….well hopefully you get the idea.

You are talking about a time that was around 2,500 years ago and if you think the stigma in modern society over unmarried women who weren’t virgins was still a problem in modern days until relatively recently then hopefully you will see how that would have also been a problem 2500 years ago.

We all know the facts around babies being taken off unmarried women in the uk even as recently as the late 70s.

It doesn't matter if these texts are cited by atheists. We're not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God here. I'm citing them simply because they're relevant to a discussion of whether the bible sounds like Andrew Tate. You seem to demand that it should sound like Tate verbatim. I guess you win on that point: the bible doesn't say "pull that b*tch by her hair." But it does recommend a paradigm where women are subservient to, and the property of, men. That's Andrew Tate-ish, more or less.

The reason the rapist of a married woman was put to death was because the married woman was considered the property of another man. An unmarried woman didn't warrant the same consideration. Everything you have said about the stigma of an unmarried woman who was not a virgin is true, but that only proves my point. The resolution is unjust because the stigma itself is unjust. You're arguing in a circle: the precept that forces the woman to marry her rapist is saving her from the precept that a woman who is not a virgin is lower than dirt. Both precepts are mere verses apart in Deuteronomy. It's like choosing your poison.

Nobody denies that these scriptures are from 2500 years ago. Times were more difficult and unforgiving then. There's probably a Darwinian value to being barbaric, warlike, and Andrew Tate-ish when you're nomads in the desert with enemies on all sides. But there's no reason to defend or justify these texts anymore.

 

[Anonymous]

You could say the same about any trial, civil or criminal. Many people walk free from court not necessarily because they are innocent, but because there wasn't enough evidence. But legally that means there is no case against them and they have no stain on their record. I did use the word technically Spacey is the victim in this case. I was being intentionally provocative, as I said. Of course I wouldn't actually call him a victim. And of course I have sympathy for Mr Rapp. I don't think he was malicious in his allegation. I think his troubled past was probably much more the driving factor. But the jury decided the allegation probably did not happen. If Spacey was a black man and the person making the allegation was a white girl from Alabama - would you object so strongly to the idea that Spacey was technically the victim in this case?
I'm not defending Weinstein and have never defended Weinstein in any of my posts. Weinstein was convicted of rape. Coercing someone into sex is abhorrent.
The subject of the Der Spiegel interview wasn't introduced into the thread by me. It was introduced by Mr Angry Anonymous when he suggested that Moz was an apologist for paedophilia - which I felt was an absurd suggestion. It's just as absurd to suggest he was an apologist for Weinstein. As Malarkey has pointed out, Morrissey doesn't mention Weinstein at all in the Der Spiegel interview.

You are going around in circles.

The jury didn't decide the allegation probably didn't happen at all. See my other post on actually what the jury said.

You think his troubled past was probably much more the driving factor that he made the allegation? I think you will find the driving factor was that an adult man invited him to his apartment and lifted him in the air, lay him down on a bed and lay on top of him. That has nothing to do with his troubled past.

The absurd suggestion you accuse me of is also not true. I said Morrissey was victim blaming because he dismissed the allegation because he didn't believe Rapp because he thinks it unlikely Rapp would have gone into a room with Spacey but that part we know was categorically true as stated in court by Spacey.

The fact of whether Weinstein was mentioned is not the point as has been pointed out so many times now. The questioning was in relation to the Me Too claimants and Morrissey stated that the people speaking out about their abuse were only doing so because they didn't get a successful career out it. I have asked you many times whether you agree with that view and you have always avoided it. Maybe you would like to express your view now that you are ok with that statement?

And again the point is any of the above but was Morrissey the victim of an orchestrated plan to silence him as he claims or is this just individuals stopping supporting him because they don't agree with what he was saying?

 

[Aubrey McFate]

You are talking about a council from more than 500 years ago. Outside of religion also at that time the concept of feminism was not a thing.

This historic point you try to make isn’t really relevant. I’m not a defender of the Catholic Church or it’s practices but those declarations from 500 years ago weren’t as a result of the ancient texts from the apostles but you have to again look at why and what was happening and the council of Trent was a response to Lutherism. Political rather than religious. I’m not aware of any modern day Christians who take the letter of doctrines outside of the New Testament written 500 years ago as gospel. It wasn’t just religions that lived by those kind of doctrines back then. It applied to all with regard to social constructs.

Not every canon of Trent was a political response to Lutheranism. On points like sola scriptura or transubstantiation, you'd be correct. But Trent spanned twenty years and addressed a variety of concerns. The canon on marriage was societal, not political. And I think you missed my point: obviously, "the concept of feminism was not a thing." My point was that it could not have been a thing because the orthodox Christian view of a woman's place was intrinsically caught up in the foundational paradigm of Genesis. Trent cited Eve and Sarah. But it doesn't have to be Trent; that was just the first example that came to mind, because it says a woman shouldn't even leave the house without her husband's permission. The Church fathers had offered similar opinions a thousand years before Trent. It's a common thread throughout almost the entirety of church history until recently.

We can only speculate on how long it would have taken women's liberation to flower had Christianity not vanquished paganism. But one thing to keep in mind is that the pagan philosophers of antiquity were not beholden to a single text narrative as the divine word. There was much more intellectual freedom. And on subjects like suicide and the eating of meat, some of them were light years ahead of the Christian dogmatism that would come along and squelch any serious discourse on such things.

 

[Anonymous]

You have to really be scum to defend Weinstein.
As a general rule I try to avoid calling human beings scum. No matter who they are or what they have done. But I have to ask - would you call the lawyer who defended him scum as well? The whole legal system would collapse if we all shared your enlightened approach.

A lawyer is to provide a defendant with a fair trial. There will always be a lawyer. A lawyer is there to allow the legal system to function. A lawyer isn't responsible for the crimes committed by the defendant.

 

[Malarkey]

What are you talking about? It wasn't on set. It had nothing to do with any production.

There was no chaperone needed at a social event.

I went to many social events in my teens without any parents or chaperones as do millions of teenagers.

When you were 14, although I'm not sure if you have reached that age yet, did you only go to places with your parents?

Cornflakes was referring to House of Cards.

 

[Malarkey]

I think you should channel your energy into the abysmal American legal system rather than blaming a singer you're no longer a fan of who has nothing to do with any of these cases.

 

[Orca]

It doesn't matter if these texts are cited by atheists. We're not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God here. I'm citing them simply because they're relevant to a discussion of whether the bible sounds like Andrew Tate. You seem to demand that it should sound like Tate verbatim. I guess you win on that point: the bible doesn't say "pull that b*tch by her hair." But it does recommend a paradigm where women are subservient to, and the property of, men. That's Andrew Tate-ish, more or less.

The reason the rapist of a married woman was put to death was because the married woman was considered the property of another man. An unmarried woman didn't warrant the same consideration. Everything you have said about the stigma of an unmarried woman who was not a virgin is true, but that only proves my point. The resolution is unjust because the stigma itself is unjust. You're arguing in a circle: the precept that forces the woman to marry her rapist is saving her from the precept that a woman who is not a virgin is lower than dirt. Both precepts are mere verses apart in Deuteronomy. It's like choosing your poison.

Nobody denies that these scriptures are from 2500 years ago. Times were more difficult and unforgiving then. There's probably a Darwinian value to being barbaric, warlike, and Andrew Tate-ish when you're nomads in the desert with enemies on all sides. But there's no reason to defend or justify these texts anymore.

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.

Also those practices were not confined to religious beliefs and as recent as the late 70s in the UK civil government took babies off unmarried women.

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.

 

[Anonymous]

Cornflakes was referring to House of Cards.

But the house of cards isn't in relation to the same offence. It is related to the production company's losses from having to sack Spacey because of completely different complaints from members of the crew in relation to sexual harassment.

I am pretty sure crew workers on a production don't need chaperones.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you should channel your energy into the abysmal American legal system rather than blaming a singer you're no longer a fan of who has nothing to do with any of these cases.

Why? Are you saying I shouldn't speak?

For victim blaming I can absolutely blame Morrissey. That has nothing to do with the legal system. You keep saying he has nothing to do with these cases but are you now saying he never said what he said?

He made a statement that was victim blaming and because of that many people left his fanbase and that is the reason for his career effect, not an orchestrated silencing plan.

The ins and outs of the law is by the by for this point.

 

[Anonymous]

You could say the same about any trial, civil or criminal. Many people walk free from court not necessarily because they are innocent, but because there wasn't enough evidence. But legally that means there is no case against them and they have no stain on their record. I did use the word technically Spacey is the victim in this case. I was being intentionally provocative, as I said. Of course I wouldn't actually call him a victim. And of course I have sympathy for Mr Rapp. I don't think he was malicious in his allegation. I think his troubled past was probably much more the driving factor. But the jury decided the allegation probably did not happen. If Spacey was a black man and the person making the allegation was a white girl from Alabama - would you object so strongly to the idea that Spacey was technically the victim in this case?
I'm not defending Weinstein and have never defended Weinstein in any of my posts. Weinstein was convicted of rape. Coercing someone into sex is abhorrent.
The subject of the Der Spiegel interview wasn't introduced into the thread by me. It was introduced by Mr Angry Anonymous when he suggested that Moz was an apologist for paedophilia - which I felt was an absurd suggestion. It's just as absurd to suggest he was an apologist for Weinstein. As Malarkey has pointed out, Morrissey doesn't mention Weinstein at all in the Der Spiegel interview.

As an outspoken advocate for freedom of speech do you not this it is a little to describe someone who is speaking about his views, Mr Angry?

Many of the posts you have posted have had an angry angle in relation to your "pro women", trans gender posts.

When someone posts something you don't like do you try to belittle them by calling the person Mr Angry?

Should I refer to you as Mrs Angry?

I would think name calling would go against your freedom to speak stance.

It doesn't bother me what you call me. Sticks and Stones and all that but just think its a little odd for such a champion of freedom to speak rights to resort to name calling someone you don't agree with.

 

[gashonthenail]

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.

Also those practices were not confined to religious beliefs and as recent as the late 70s in the UK civil government took babies off unmarried women.

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.

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.

 

[Malarkey]

Why? Are you saying I shouldn't speak?

For victim blaming I can absolutely blame Morrissey. That has nothing to do with the legal system. You keep saying he has nothing to do with these cases but are you now saying he never said what he said?

He made a statement that was victim blaming and because of that many people left his fanbase and that is the reason for his career effect, not an orchestrated silencing plan.

The ins and outs of the law is by the by for this point.

He didn't victim blame - he repeated a story that didn't happen & thought no offense had occured.

 

[Anonymous]

He didn't victim blame - he repeated a story that didn't happen & thought no offense had occured.

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.