'Locker Room Banter'

[Petminder]

Or I might just talk about giving you a sore lip for claiming that you sexually assault people. Is that something you claim regularly? Because in case you forgot, that was the trigger for my banter.

 

It's still outrageous how you're prepared to right off what DT said as "banter" when he claimed that he actually did it. Yet you seem convinced that I would punch you, when I've never made a claim to have punched anyone (well, except in training, where I can tell you that I've never managed to break a jaw, cause brain damage or kill anyone. I'll own up to causing a bloody nose, and having a bloody nose)...

 

It's almost irrelevant that you have this skewed view about which is worse, based on a set of very unlikely outcomes for assault. The key thing is that you're continuing to try to downplay the claimed sexual assault by DT, and instead create a smokescreen from a throwaway bit of forum banter.

 

You can't know the consequences of punching me in the face, you might intend just giving me a sore lip but end up killing me. My opinion is based on experience and experience tells me that a punch in the face was far worse than being kissed and touched, I have no idea why you think I should agree with you just because you say I should.

[Cyclone]

You can't know the consequences of sexual assault either.

Mayfly182 has tried to explain that to you, but you don't seem to get it.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:22 ----------

 

I have no idea why you think I should agree with you just because you say I should.

 

You are entitled to an opinion of course. Don't expect everyone else to agree with it though, it seems pretty perverse to me.

And the opinion about assault vs sexual assault doesn't even start to explain why you're defending DT and trying to keep the attention away from his claims and the subsequent allegations.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:28 ----------

 

For reference, here was your first comment on the thread.

Its not bloke banter, its people banter, women also talk dirty about men and occasionally touch men before asking for permission.

You dismiss it as banter, you then try to normalise sexual assault claiming that women do it as well. As if that somehow makes it all okay then.

Violence is much worse than Trumps comments and the threat of violence might stop the men you know from saying what they think. Its never a good idea to punch someone in the gob just for saying something you don't like.

And despite your "it's banter" defence for DT, you won't accept the same defence for something written on a forum, instead you keep using it to try to distract from the real topic.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Cyclone

[Petminder]

You can't know the consequences of sexual assault either.

Mayfly182 has tried to explain that to you, but you don't seem to get it.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:22 ----------

 

 

You are entitled to an opinion of course. Don't expect everyone else to agree with it though, it seems pretty perverse to me.

And the opinion about assault vs sexual assault doesn't even start to explain why you're defending DT and trying to keep the attention away from his claims and the subsequent allegations.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but unlike you I wouldn't punch someone in the face for having opinions I don't like, I think your opinion is perverse, but I wouldn't hit you or threaten to hit you for having it,I have a good bunch of friends with very different opinions on a wide variety of topics including this one, we respect each others different opinions and experiences and we don't let them get in the way of out friendship, or punch each other in the face.

[Halibut]

What you describe is entirely different to what Trump said and is accused of.

 

I know someone that died from one punch to the face, I know plenty of women including me that have been kissed and touched without first giving permission, I accept that some women don't like to be touched or kissed but please don't think it is the majority and please don't compare it to a violent attack.

 

What Mayfly describes is exactly what Trump said and is accused of; sexual assault.

 

It's enormously damaging and degrading to the victim. I don't understand why you aren't condemning Trump as the mysogynistic sexual bully that he so clearly is.

 

Is it because you think Trump is a great fellow, or that you think women shouldn't get so upset about being sexually assaulted?

[Petminder]

And despite your "it's banter" defence for DT, you won't accept the same defence for something written on a forum, instead you keep using it to try to distract from the real topic.

 

Doesn't that also apply to you, you claimed to be violent but now say it was just banter, yet you dismiss that same argument from DT.

[Cyclone]

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but unlike you I wouldn't punch someone in the face for having opinions I don't like,

Where's the 'banter defence' for me? (This was never about opinions though was it. It was about a claim of sexual assault, that's not an opinion).

I think your opinion is perverse,

Mine is the opinion in line with the mainstream, by definition that's not perverse.

but I wouldn't hit you or threaten to hit you for having it,I have a good bunch of friends with very different opinions on a wide variety of topics including this one, we respect each others different opinions and experiences and we don't let them get in the way of out friendship, or punch each other in the face.

Now you're just making stuff up. Nobody mentioned assault with regards to an opinion did they... It was banter about assault for CLAIMING TO HAVE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WOMEN. You keep conveniently forgetting that don't you.

I certainly couldn't be friends with someone who made such claims. That experience would very much get in the way of our friendship.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:36 ----------

 

Doesn't that also apply to you, you claimed to be violent but now say it was just banter, yet you dismiss that same argument from DT.

 

No, I didn't make that claim did I. You're just lying now.

 

You're still trying to distract from DT, but I said "would", he said "had". That's a key difference. And now there are women verifying his claims. The only way to verify my banter would be to have a friend claim to have sexually assaulted someone and see if I hit them or not.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:38 ----------

 

Tell you what. I retract what I said. If a friend of mine made a claim to have sexually assaulted someone I'd report it to the police. I wouldn't punch them, that was just banter. I might want to punch them, I might think that they deserve it, but I think the police would be a better option.

Can we now focus on why you are an apologist for sexual assault?

Edited October 22, 2016 by Cyclone

[phil752]

nothing new here today

[Petminder]

Where's the 'banter defence' for me? (This was never about opinions though was it. It was about a claim of sexual assault, that's not an opinion).

 

Mine is the opinion in line with the mainstream, by definition that's not perverse.

Now you're just making stuff up. Nobody mentioned assault with regards to an opinion did they... It was banter about assault for CLAIMING TO HAVE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WOMEN. You keep conveniently forgetting that don't you.

I certainly couldn't be friends with someone who made such claims. That experience would very much get in the way of our friendship.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:36 ----------

 

 

No, I didn't make that claim did I. You're just lying now.

 

You're still trying to distract from DT, but I said "would", he said "had". That's a key difference. And now there are women verifying his claims. The only way to verify my banter would be to have a friend claim to have sexually assaulted someone and see if I hit them or not.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2016 at 10:38 ----------

 

Tell you what. I retract what I said. If a friend of mine made a claim to have sexually assaulted someone I'd report it to the police. I wouldn't punch them, that was just banter. I might want to punch them, I might think that they deserve it, but I think the police would be a better option.

Can we now focus on why you are an apologist for sexual assault?

 

I haven't defended Trump, I have said he is the better of the 2 choices, given the choice of talking face to face with you or Trump I would choose Trump because according to him and his accusers the worst that would happen is he would try to touch and kiss me. If your statement is true the worst that would happen if I met you would be death after you punched me in the face.

[Cyclone]

Its not bloke banter, its people banter, women also talk dirty about men and occasionally touch men before asking for permission.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2016 at 15:45 ----------

 

 

The choice of president is a man that was privately disrespectful to women and a women that verbally attacked her husbands victims and is careless with sensitive and top secret information. I don't envy the American people with such a poor choice of candidates.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2016 at 15:53 ----------

 

Violence is much worse than Trumps comments and the threat of violence might stop the men you know from saying what they think. Its never a good idea to punch someone in the gob just for saying something you don't like.

 

This is all a defence of DT. It's also a false dichotomy you're using to defend him with regards to 'violence'. Not to mention your attempt to normalise and excuse sexual assault and the "banter" defence you keep using.

[Petminder]

This is all a defence of DT. It's also a false dichotomy you're using to defend him with regards to 'violence'. Not to mention your attempt to normalise and excuse sexual assault and the "banter" defence you keep using.

 

No it an attack on your attempt to normalise violence against people you disagree with.