Yes, several have since offered that inference.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A woman's rage
- Thread starter ChristineM
- Start date
That could very well be.
So could EF but he certainly doesn't come across that way
I don't recall calling you or anyone else anything like that. I was just referring to the hypothetical "silent majority" referred to in the post I was responding to. If you want to put that shoe on and wear it, then that's on you, not on me.
Yes, but that's neither here nor there.
How people come across is so subjective.
I hear completely opposite conclusions based upon personal perception.
Thus, I won't apply my own.
Ahh but i have first hand thread experience of EF's caring and gentle attitude. I speak as i find.
One of the sweetest, calmest, & most professional
guys I've ever met maintained my computer hardware.
Turned out he was a serial killer.
Ref...
Deception and mystery mark case
I know the prosecutor in his case.
My guy left a longer & larger trail of carnage than found in the news.
(They never even found out his real name.)
He'd go to hitting homeless shelters offering to help put people back on
their feet by giving them work. Everyone bought his generous story.
But he'd kill them to assume their identity.
As an employer, I've found that one just cannot trust impressions
when judging honesty & dishonesty. And I've no faith that others
can do any better.
Last edited:
I speak my mind...but that doesn't mean I am not gentle.
I've found i am a pretty good judge of character, my spidey sense has only let me down once. Sure nothing is 100% but I'll stick with what i know and trust.
BTW, serial killers can be sweet. Long story short, someone i know worked in a high security prison. One of the most unassuming, mild looking, always dapper dressed even in prison uniform, well spoken gentleman held the other inmates in awe and fear. His previous job before sewing mail bags was a mafia hitman.
Yes, then delete the post when you realise how embarrassing your mind is
BTW, deleting a post after its been quoted is futile
I might have unusual views, but that has nothing to do with being caring or gentle.
And btw...once you said you were shocked by the fact I okayed that a guy grabbed my sister's breast...only because I thought he was cute.
You can find me shocking but IRL I am a sweet person.
Personal opinion of yourself is by definition, biassed, i go not on what you say about yourself but on what you post in general.
BTW, i never mentioned cute, i was horrified that you stood there as a voyeur while your sister was being sexually molested.
If people were so trustworthy in this regard, there wouldn't be
such massive division on the subject....each sure of judgment.
I observe that these judgements correlate with prior sympathies.
Is that a circumspect enuf expression of skepticism?
"Mild"....that was the word I fruitlessly searched for
to describe Steve (the name he used with me).
Mafia goombahs are ***** cats compared to Steve.
How odd.....one cannot get an innocent feline term
past the censor. It's "pu$$y cat".
Weird....we can say "dick", "dingus", "weenie", "wang",
"johnson", "rosco", "cock" & "dong"....but not "pu$$y".
Seems a double standard, eh.
Last edited:
With me they correlate to eyes, eye movements, actions, manor of speaking, subject matter, body language, and a host of other factors including... yes, intuition
As i said earlier, ive only been wrong once which i guess is why i was keen to start this thread.
I wonder who had most murders to his name?
I can assure u I am a romantic person...
especially because I speak a romance language
My fundie friend is also gifted with what he calls "spiritual insight".
He is always right, so he has a leg up on you.
And he pronounces Ford the liar, in part because of her deep state CIA connections.
(One cannot make this stuff up. I don't argue about it.)
I doubt that either would admit to a count.
But if they did, you'd know who is truthful, eh?
I agree that our system is supposed to follow the idea that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, although that hasn't stopped innocent people from being accused or even convicted - until they're proved innocent years later. The Innocence Project has quite a few such cases on their website. Even going further back, historically one can find a long list of lynchings and others who were convicted of crimes they didn't commit. I still find it rather interesting that such things happen in a land where people are supposedly innocent until proven guilty.
How can someone be "proven guilty" if they are, in fact, innocent? That surely must violate some scientific principle somewhere, shouldn't it? If we're going to use flimsy evidence and call it "proof," then at the very least, we should apply the same standard to everything, including the JFK assassination and 9/11, among other things. Fair is fair. If the same standard can't be applied consistently, then we need to change the standard.
Yes, I agree completely that the media are a large part of the problem. But a lot of it also has to do with how many people react to something they see in the media and then turn it into some kind of crusade. That's what we've seen with this recent case. It's not just a matter of damaging the reputation of the accused, it's also a matter of attacking and impugning the reputation of anyone who "doesn't believe" the accuser.
Even those in this thread who refuse to instantly and blindly accept these accusations as fact - even they're being attacked and having their reputations besmirched even when they haven't done anything wrong. That's where it goes way over the line.
It's no longer a matter of accusing people of actual wrongdoing; people are being accused and attacked merely for what they "believe" or "disbelieve."
When people are needlessly attacked over "heresy against doctrine," that's when rational people need to take a long hard look at what is actually going on.
If we don't, then we have no business complaining if the same principle is applied in other areas, such as when the president calls for round ups of illegal immigrants or a ban on Muslims - among other things. This is not a good direction we're taking in this country with this kind of lynch mob atmosphere being fostered and encouraged.
Even if the outrage over Kavanaugh appears on the surface to be anti-Trump, it still shifts the mode of thinking of the masses to a state of rage and irrationality which plays right into Trump's hands. He's truly diabolical in the way he's manipulating the people in this way, even including those who have mostly been his opponents. I also note that the #metoo movement was also directed at a lot of those on the celebrity left, people who have been mostly against Trump. The fact that so many people are falling into this trap is somewhat astounding, yet not all that surprising.
I would agree that men may be in a position to change their collective reputation, but as for individual men, all we can really do is control our own actions and rely upon law enforcement and the justice system to deal with criminals. It's really all we can do at this point. If we try to go beyond that, then we might as well say that "Muslims need to fix their collective reputation" or "Mexicans need to fix their collective reputation" - or any other group one might use in such a statement.
And it's really not that easy for women to make an accusation like this, especially since there's a lot of people (including, in this instance, a sufficient majority in the Senate) who didn't believe it. Moreover, from what many women have said, it's not at all that easy to make any accusation of rape whatsoever, even if they are truly victims of that heinous crime. That's what they've been saying, especially those who waited years or decades to make any kind of accusation at all.
As for what side people believe, that seems more a matter of politics than anything else. The media circus will only show the public what it wants them to see, and it will structure the debate in such a way as to compel people to pick one side or another as to what they "believe." Meanwhile, there are no doubt plenty of rapes and assaults being perpetrated against women of lesser privilege, who won't make the national news and won't be the subject of a national debate.
If people really want to solve this problem, then they have to start thinking outside the box the media have laid down for them.
What I find somewhat incredulous about this whole discussion is that no one, to the best of my knowledge, is calling for rape laws to be abolished. No one is saying that rape is a good thing. The notion that "men don't understand what it's like to be a woman" is also a red herring which is totally pointless in the context of this discussion. It's not necessary for me to be raped (or any other analogous crime that will "make men understand") in order to be cognizant of the fact that rape is a bad thing.
If both sides substantially agree with each other that rape is bad, that it's a crime which should be stopped and punished, then what, exactly, is this debate about? Where is the disagreement? Can someone tell me that?
When I served on a jury, the guy was accused of attempting a jail break.
The evidence was tampering with the cell. But after this prisoner was
rotated out of his cell, several other prisoners occupied it. No audit of
the cell was done in between transfers. So any of at least several
occupants could've tampered with it.
It appeared that there was at most a 20% probability that he was guilty.
Despite this being far far less than "beyond a reasonable doubt", two
of the jurors voted <guilty>.
Some background....
The accused was a black male with a very non-white haircut. He sat
in court wearing an orange jumpsuit, with armed guards flanking him.
The jurors, both white women, said they voted <guilty> because he
was scary looking.
Before anyone objects, I'm not dissing white folk or women....just noting
that social factors can easily often corrupt our judgment.
The presumption of innocence is often discarded, even in the legal system.
This is especially true of cops, one of whom told me that they dispensed
summary justice in the field.