Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[bartman]

That's my point though with Kiki - that's where she's been emotional and not logical - people shouldn't feel sorry for him drinking too much and being a goose. Justifiying it with "the NRL has been softer in the past" opens the door for allowing softer punishments evermore and more schtick for the game as a whole. Coming down hard = good in the public eye.

I agree with your opinion on the matter/suspension totally, but I don't think you need to attempt to discredit an opposing view on gender/personal lines? Just let the strength of your opinion stand for itself, and let others (including women) have theirs without inferring anything about their person...

 

[sass]

well said bart.

 

[Timmah]

Timmah's good sport... he sure has backpedalled in the posts that followed.

But I'm still not so sure he has a case for sidelining one person's opinion because of the emotions he thinks they have toward the situation, while then going on to admit he has emotions about the issues too.

What makes one person's emotions that lead to their opinion more or less relevant that anothers? Nothing at all. I reckon we can all co-exist even if we disagree, without some bizarre need to attack the woman/person holding the opinion, rather than simply discuss the opinions themselves...

I didn't backpedal at all - I just clarified the point I first made. Sass made the assumption that I was tarring all women with the same brush when I was just making a point about Kiki. The reason I said what I said was because kiki had come out suggesting she was neutral, and I disagreed. I've never said her opinion isn't valid, just that it has a certain type of bias to it. You're the one who's gone and made the assumption I'm attacking people.

People can feel sorry for him if they choose. Like I said he has a clean record and is his first offence but he has been hammered. It may well come to light that he only got smashed and was refused service (not a big deal in my eyes if that was all that happened), the alleged incident could all be rubbish.

Absolutely they can feel sorry for them if they choose, but it can't be based on any sort of reason or logic - it has to be emotion. The facts remain he was drunk, and that's why he's in trouble.

 

[Timmah]

I agree with your opinion on the matter/suspension totally, but I don't think you need to attempt to discredit an opposing view on gender/personal lines? Just let the strength of your opinion stand for itself, and let others (including women) have theirs without inferring anything about their person...

She said she was neutral. I disagreed.

Could you please in future read all the posts before making accusations about ME?

 

[Garts]

I didn't backpedal at all - I just clarified the point I first made. Sass made the assumption that I was tarring all women with the same brush when I was just making a point about Kiki. The reason I said what I said was because kiki had come out suggesting she was neutral, and I disagreed. I've never said her opinion isn't valid, just that it has a certain type of bias to it. You're the one who's gone and made the assumption I'm attacking people.

Absolutely they can feel sorry for them if they choose, but it can't be based on any sort of reason or logic - it has to be emotion. The facts remain he was drunk, and that's why he's in trouble.

I feel a little sorry for him as he has received a severe punishment for a first offence compared to others. Is that a reason or emotion?

 

[Timmah]

The first offence landed him in a position where he was charged with an alleged offence. That's a pretty serious first offence. Add that to the fact he was the face of an advertisting campaign for not his club but the entire code of football, and the drinking was a result of his attending a season launch for the club - all those factors together justify, with logic, his suspension.

 

[Garts]

The first offence landed him in a position where he was charged with an alleged offence. That's a pretty serious first offence. Add that to the fact he was the face of an advertisting campaign for not his club but the entire code of football, and the drinking was a result of his attending a season launch for the club - all those factors together justify, with logic, his suspension.

I know the facts. And I can see how you came up with your view. However saying my view is not based on any sort of reason or logic is wrong.

 

[Timmah]

Fair point, but it has far more emotion attached to it.

 

[Garts]

Fair point, but it has far more emotion attached to it.

You assume that as I am a Manly fan. If this was someone like Craig Wing or a Andrew Ryan who are also clean skins (I think) I would also feel sorry for them.

For the record I can understand why the NRL did what they did. Do I agree with it? Yes and no.

 

[MSIH]

Fair point, but it has far more emotion attached to it.

Haha, when you form an opinion it's based on reason or logic. If anyone has a differing opinion it's based on emotion. You're a joke.

 

[bartman]

She said she was neutral. I disagreed.

Could you please in future read all the posts before making accusations about ME?

Do you agree that you (or me) are no more neutral than her?

 

[Eels Dude]

All this criticism of Timmah seems to revolve around his slight misuse of the term 'gender' in the initial post that sparked this debate. Since then it's been blown way out of proportion and turned into a feminist attack on him.

 

[bartman]

No, it's moved on Eels Dude.

There's a question in green for Timmah to answer that has nothing to do with feminism.

 

[Garts]

All this criticism of Timmah seems to revolve around his slight misuse of the term 'gender' in the initial post that sparked this debate. Since then it's been blown way out of proportion and turned into a feminist attack on him.

My disagreement has nothing to do with gender.

 

[wittyfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUWgDppzMWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CLwxVbpNjg

 

[adamkungl]

She might be a neutral from that perspective, but she has an emotional & physical bias toward all players from a gender point of view. I think you understand what I mean.

a) Neutral doesn't mean "no opinion". You seem to be implying this by disagreeing with Kiki's being neutral on the basis that she's defending Stewart.

b) Wouldn't it be just as likely, if not moreso, that she would have a gender bias towards the girl, especially given that Kiki admitted to having had a somewhat similar incident some years back, earlier in the thread?

in conclusion, stfu.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CLwxVbpNjg

effie now has to change his undies

 

[wittyfan]

:lol:

 

[Eels Dude]

My disagreement has nothing to do with gender.

I understand, you were not who I was referring to. Out of curiosity what is it you disagree with? There's too many arguments going on at once.

Some posters keep referring to the term 'neutral'. To be 'neutral' is to not favour either side. I think what Timmah is getting at is that you cannot claim you are neutral yet obviously and continually show favour to one party. He's right in that regard.

On bias, well there's a bit of it in all of us, whether we admit it or not. Everyone's going to form their own opinions based on their beliefs, understandings and personal ethics. If that were not the case then there would be no such thing as an opinion.

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

I am a little confussed at the moment.
24 hrs ago the "experts on here were providing Links to Sexual Assult websites and stating that Sexual Assult must have "penatration" to be correct. Today we have found out that DNA test have come back negative strongly sugesting no "penatration" has occured.
Our experts have told us to read between the lines of all the reports and the truth is there clear as day. Because of the assumption of Penatration.
NOW we are being told by the same people in here that Sexual Assult doesn't require penatration, and it is still obvious that he is "in trouble"
At this stage he is still facing a charge based on an "accusation" of Sexual Assult. But maybe some of his "haters" in here can now admit that there is a distinct possibility that this is an over reaction and a little more innocent that some of you are making out.
He has done some amazingly stupid things in this saga, but he just may not be the monster that some of you are making out.

No, they just say things like "this doesn't mean much", "it won't make a difference" and "obviously won't have any impact on the outcome of the case"