Scandal Pies Captain gets gropey with young teammate

[Fat Jesus]

I'd agree and say you're correct. He probably didn't have consent when he did it, hence it wasn't a consenting act as claimed.

It was his girlfriend FFS. she didn't give a s**t. So why do you?

 

[.Shotties.]

It was his girlfriend FFS.

"It's his girlfriend so he didn't need consent" is the best take in his thread since "she consented after a few drinks".

 

[Pistol Night]

"It's his girlfriend so he didn't need consent" is the best take in his thread since "she consented after a few drinks".

* me are you Jon Ralph's apprentice or something?

 

[.Shotties.]

* me are you Jon Ralph's apprentice or something?

Yeah, sorry, she posted "Nothing to see here guys" the day after it happened in the middle of a media blow up. 100% means she was okay with it happening at the time it happened. Who doesn't love their partner exposing them in public and on the internet?

 

[Pistol Night]

Yeah, sorry, she posted "Nothing to see here guys" the day after it happened in the middle of a media blow up. 100% means she was okay with it happening at the time it happened. Who doesn't love their partner exposing them in public and on the internet?

I'd love it. No such luck though

 

[Fat Jesus]

Yeah, sorry, she posted "Nothing to see here guys" the day after it happened in the middle of a media blow up. 100% means she was okay with it happening at the time it happened. Who doesn't love their partner exposing them in public and on the internet?

If we had no Neanderthal laws most girls would walk around with no tops on. Just like men can do. If his girlfriend had a problem she could have charged him.
Nothing to see here.

 

[.Shotties.]

. If his girlfriend had a problem she could have charged him.
Nothing to see here.

Showing a real depth of knowledge on the topic here.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Showing a real depth of knowledge on the topic here.

So no one complained and yet you want him charged? Seek help

Again: His girlfriend capiche

 

[Pistol Night]

So no one complained and yet you want him charged? Seek help

Perhaps we should start a GoFund me page to hire a QC and take this to the high court on Remi's behalf. Seems the noble thing to do

 

[.Shotties.]

So no one complained and yet you want him charged? Seek help

Where did I say that? You guys seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar. DeGoey pulled down this woman's top in public and while she was being streamed live. It probably wasn't a consenting act.

You can piss your pants trying to justify it for whatever personal reasons you have, but that's the base of it.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Where did I say that? You guys seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar. DeGoey pulled down this woman's top in public and while she was being streamed live. It probably wasn't a consenting act.

You can piss your pants trying to justify it for whatever personal reasons you have, but that's the base of it.

It's only you hot under the collar buddy.

 

[Just Watching]

It is just a silly photo. Pretty clear the girl being groped is not bothered by it.

Pretty ridiculous to make that call from a still in time. You have no idea what happened immediately before or after that split second.

People comparing it to sexual harassment from men is a fair stretch but likewise people brushing it off are kidding themselves.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

Pretty ridiculous to make that call from a still in time. You have no idea what happened immediately before or after that split second.

People comparing it to sexual harassment from men is a fair stretch but likewise people brushing it off are kidding themselves.

The problem is you are basically speaking to a cultist. These sorts of people will never admit to a double standard. There will always be some reason why perfectly comparable situations are not actually comparable in their world. Equally they will post rubbish and complain about mundane s**t like 'teachers are underpaid because it's a female dominated industry' while neglecting the fact that all other government jobs are similarly paid like police, nurses, paramedics, etc. The federal APS bands pretty much directly mirror teaching bands where pay tops out around 105-110k and only increases beyond that with promotions that are more difficult to obtain, where management of people is involved, etc. I say this as someone who has a shitload of family in teaching (and am currently studying teaching as a mature age student).

They will never admit to any of this because:
a) They are bitter women who need something to pin their lack of achievements on; or
b) Men trying to get 'good boy' pats on the head.

Ask these people why they believe in unfettered access to abortions whilst calling men that pay their child support (begrudgingly) but otherwise have no involvement in their children's lives (because they never wanted to be a father) 'deadbeats'. They will answer with rights of the child (whilst ignoring its right to be born) and the male equivalent of 'close your legs' and think they won the argument.

The best you can do is point and laugh and move on.

 

[.Shotties.]

Ask these people why they believe in unfettered access to abortions whilst calling men that pay their child support (begrudgingly) but otherwise have no involvement in their children's lives (because they never wanted to be a father) 'deadbeats'. They will answer with rights of the child (whilst ignoring its right to be born) and the male equivalent of 'close your legs' and think they won the argument.

A lot to unpack with this incredibly specific straw man.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

A lot to unpack with this incredibly specific straw man.

And yet you couldn't be bothered unpacking any of it.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

View attachment 1605790

Identical to this incident really and should cop the same level of reaction.

 

[Satan]

Jack Ginnivan likes this thread

 

[Borough Blood]

And yet you couldn't be bothered unpacking any of it.

You’re giving yourself too much credit. Try a coherent argument next time.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

You’re giving yourself too much credit. Try a coherent argument next time.

\
Bit difficult when the other side of the argument has no logical consistency.

 

[.Shotties.]

\
Bit difficult when the other side of the argument has no logical consistency.

You just invented "the other side of the argument". Literally nothing you mentioned and railed against has been posted in this thread.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

You just invented "the other side of the argument". Literally nothing you mentioned and railed against has been posted in this thread.

The other side of the argument is the one where posters have twisted themselves in knots to suggest the JDG x2, and Chol is different to the picture that is the subject of this thread. The one that caused the most media attention is actually the least troubling. JDG did it to his girlfriend, who has posted more provocative photos of herself. It's her and only her that gets to decide whether JDGs actions were consensual/justified. Quick to be offended but happy to defend similar instances that go against their own narrative (generally nothing more than men = bad).

 

[.Shotties.]

. JDG did it to his girlfriend, who has posted more provocative photos of herself. It's her and only her that gets to decide whether JDGs actions were consensual

Oooh, a new one! She's posted provocative photos of herself so of course she'd consent to her boyfriend suddenly pulling her top down and groping her in public!

Given she pushed his hands away when we did it, I'd say at the moment he did it, she didn't think it was all fine.

The other side of the argument is the one where posters have twisted themselves in knots to suggest the JDG x2, and Chol is different to the picture that is the subject of this
thread.

Yeah, cool, but that's not what you were ranting about in your first post.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

Oooh, a new one! She's posted provocative photos of herself so of course she'd consent to her boyfriend suddenly pulling her top down and groping her in public!

Given she pushed his hands away when we did it, I'd say at the moment he did it, she didn't think it was all fine.

Yeah, cool, but that's not what you were ranting about in your first post.

That's fine, lets appoint shotties to go and decide what is okay in everyone's relationship for them. The sequence of footage shows she was perfectly happy later on in the night. She said it was fine soon after on social media. It was a nothing story, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it, but a combination of a) people who have made a career out of being outraged b) a complicit media that profits out of outrage with articles like 'Albanese SMASHES Aussie battlers in new low' and c) a mostly compliant public that either don't care or are too worried about being labelled a misogynist if they disagree, means that people who keep on putting out stupid ideas aren't cut down for being stupid.

As for the examples, why aren't I allowed to bring in a broader social context to these debates? The second you (not necessarily you personally but you in the third person) get backed into a corner and look dumb, argue that it's actually not really about JDG's actions it's about the broader debate around sexism/DV/etc and 'it's a bad look'. My argument is essentially:
1)The sorts of people that find fault in almost anything and are perennially outraged can't maintain any logical consistency. They twist themselves up in knots and make nonsense arguments as to why two identical or near identical situations are actually not the same.
2) There are some genuinely unhinged people. Clementine Ford and her acolytes are the obvious ones, but there are plenty more. They just hate men and view literally everything through the lens of 'how does this oppress me'.
3) There are lots of 'little things' that add up to big things. If you went and asked everyone that is pushing back about this, they probably don't care about this 1 example, it's the 1000 other examples that came before it. There are a lot of people that want to define what masculinity is, about what being a 'good man' is, about how everyone should act in public and criticize everything that doesn't correspond with their ideals. Their ideals are almost always what benefits them most.

When people argue the most inane s**t and then can't hold themselves or someone else in their 'group' to the same standards it highlights that they are full of s**t. Just a man hater (or an enabler) that's bitter and pissed off at the world and needs an antagonist to justify their mediocre existence. I have no problems calling these people out for what they are because no amount of pandering will ever be enough for them.

Also, for the 1-2 people that are inevitably going to respond with some snarky response like 'tldr', * you.

 

[.Shotties.]

That's fine, lets appoint shotties to go and decide what is okay in everyone's relationship for them. The sequence of footage shows she was perfectly happy later on in the night.

That doesn't mean she was okay with having her top pulled down at the time it happened, though. There seem to be a number of people in here who struggle with the concept of consent. She may have told him he was an idiot and forgiven him. She may have just brushed it off, but at the point it occured, De Goey pulling his this person's top down probably wasn't a consensual act. I can't believe I'm having to say to grown men 'A woman getting her top suddenly pulled down in public probably isn't something she had been made aware of and agreed to before it happened.

She said it was fine soon after on social media.

Someone saying 'I can't believe the backlash at me and Jordy' isn't the same as saying what he did was fine. Even if she was pissed about it, if she was in a relationship with DeGoey, she probably understood that going out with anything else would have royally ****ed his contract which was hanging by a thread at that point.

As for the examples, why aren't I allowed to bring in a broader social context to these debates?

I mean, you can, but what you did wasn't that. It was creating a massive strawman to rail against.

3) There are lots of 'little things' that add up to big things. If you went and asked everyone that is pushing back about this, they probably don't care about this 1 example, it's the 1000 other examples that came before it. There are a lot of people that want to define what masculinity is, about what being a 'good man' is, about how everyone should act in public and criticize everything that doesn't correspond with their ideals. Their ideals are almost always what benefits them most.

When people argue the most inane s**t and then can't hold themselves or someone else in their 'group' to the same standards it highlights that they are full of s**t. Just a man hater (or an enabler) that's bitter and pissed off at the world and needs an antagonist to justify their mediocre existence. I have no problems calling these people out for what they are because no amount of pandering will ever be enough for them.

What in the ever-loving Christ are you talking about?

 

[SSwans2011]

The problem is you are basically speaking to a cultist. These sorts of people will never admit to a double standard. There will always be some reason why perfectly comparable situations are not actually comparable in their world. Equally they will post rubbish and complain about mundane s**t like 'teachers are underpaid because it's a female dominated industry' while neglecting the fact that all other government jobs are similarly paid like police, nurses, paramedics, etc. The federal APS bands pretty much directly mirror teaching bands where pay tops out around 105-110k and only increases beyond that with promotions that are more difficult to obtain, where management of people is involved, etc. I say this as someone who has a shitload of family in teaching (and am currently studying teaching as a mature age student).

They will never admit to any of this because:
a) They are bitter women who need something to pin their lack of achievements on; or
b) Men trying to get 'good boy' pats on the head.

Ask these people why they believe in unfettered access to abortions whilst calling men that pay their child support (begrudgingly) but otherwise have no involvement in their children's lives (because they never wanted to be a father) 'deadbeats'. They will answer with rights of the child (whilst ignoring its right to be born) and the male equivalent of 'close your legs' and think they won the argument.

The best you can do is point and laugh and move on.

Proper unhinged stuff, thus post