183
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People are so quick with conclusions without actual information.

If you read the article, it is about whether the person gave consent or not for the kiss.

We as just observers on the internet, have no idea about that. So why drawing conclusions?

EDIT you can downvote all you want, since it doesn’t mean anything on here. However let me ask:

Were you next to both of them when it happened? I’m assuming not, so how do you know the facts? Conclusions without facts are just random opinions.

[-] Liv2themax@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago

There's a significant difference between claiming some things was spontaneous and actually getting consent. This guy wasn't in a relationship with the player where this type of behavior would have been previously cleared. He's not even claiming that he asked permission. In this case you would have to assume mutual spontaneous consent. That is what he's claiming. However, one party has clearly said it wasn't mutual consent. So now you either have to assume the victim is lying or you take the logical path and realize that there's photographic evidence of a powerful figure, who doesn't claim to have asked for consent, assaulting a female athlete and showing no regard or remorse for that behavior.

[-] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

First of all thanks for an actual argument without throwing insults and such.

You are right indeed, about actual consent, spontaneousness/ spontaneous consent. One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?

I mean, certainly if it was not, he should resign and such. I would like to say though, I never said that there was no photographic evidence. This matter is an she versus he said.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?

You are a clown.

[-] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago
[-] osarusan@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

No man. Use your fucking brain. This is either one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen or you are truly an idiot.

You're saying the equivalent of "How do we know person A punched person B, and it wasn't person B who slammed his face into person A's fist? shrug We as internet observers just can't know."

It's disgustingly dishonest. Everyone is trying to tell you this and you keep retreating further. Step out of your shoes or whatever personal reason is causing you to have this cognitive dissonance and look the situation honestly. You should see that your posts defending this have been pathetic and dishonest.

[-] anlumo@feddit.de 34 points 1 year ago

If he never tried to get consent, there was no consent, implied or otherwise.

load more comments (51 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
183 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38583 readers
1531 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS