- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Posts
- 16,956
- Likes
- 16,467
- Location
- Brisbane
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
This is another poor form of arguing. Using word origins claiming that parts of words trivialise and/or offend due to its origin. Stick to the points of the discussion or don't bother chiming in. Its a poor attempt to claim one upmanship. Its like when Waleed Ali claimed the use of hysterical to women was offensive because some distant word origin that was originally derogatory.
Similarly the term "hysterical" in relationship to women has also historically only been used by misogynists as a way of minimising or dismissing their opinions.
Further to that, anyone arguing on behalf of the man in a sexual assault case (and flippantly dismissing the claims of the victim) runs the risk of looking pretty suss as well.
The vast majority of sexual assault cases go unreported and certainly unprosecuted. There may not be enough evidence (or even cause) to charge Powell Pepper in a court of law - but that's not what this is.
If we are talking balance of probabilities where there's video evidence of his intoxication, where he chooses not to speak in his defence and others can speak of his behaviour, then clearly the AFL feel there's a necessity for them to act.


