Pathetic

[Rewulf]

21 hours ago, grrclark said:

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Deductively and logically invalid: What you said was "Which for the sake of the clarity you requested, was that in my opinion, the feminist crusade had scored a hit against men............at the expense of sick kids!"  In order to arrive at that statement logically you would have to prove that the agenda of the journalist was one of feminism and an anti men agenda and also part of a collective cause, you can't do that.  You might believe it was that, which is fair enough, but you can't logically deduce that, hence it is invalid.  It's semantics.

As for socially unacceptable, that covers a few things, it is about consent, about exploitation and of course behaviour if performed in open society that a consensus would consider to be unacceptable.  So in the case of the first two elements of consent and exploitation, if the girls at that venue consent to be pawed, to be propositioned and it is in a private session then it isn't socially unacceptable.  If however the girls have not consented to that behaviour and are being exploited, i.e. being subjected to behaviour that they did not consent to because they happen to have been employed for the evening, then you have to consider if that event had not been in private that behaviour absolutely would be considered unacceptable, i.e. if it was in an office, shop or restaurant.  Simple really, no moral arbiter or higher purpose or no plea to some other moral authority. 

I happen to believe that it is the latter of those two scenarios, the girls were employed to do a job of work and that job does not include having some wealthy and obnoxious guy make lewd suggestion or put his hands on her so therefor the behaviour is unacceptable.

If you believe that is somehow puritanical of me or PC, to think that exploitative behaviour is wrong, then i guess we simply have a different threshold for right and wrong.

As for your suggestion of live quarry shooting, that is about consent too and exploitation too, if you are out with other shooting folk or on your own then there is no requirement for consent and you are not exploiting anybody else, so perfectly acceptable.  However if you have shot your bag it would probably be socially unacceptable to carry them on open display down a high street where you know there is a reasonable expectation that some folks may find the sight of that dead quarry distressing.  Same as posting pictures of shot foxes or the like on an open public facebook page where there again would be a reasonable expectation that some may find the sight of that distressing.  Neither of which is illegal, it is simply about respect and consideration towards other folk.

I see that there have been some other comments added to the thread as well that suggest it is ok to lay hands on a stranger or make lewd suggestions because a girl happens to be employed in a job, all I can say is that I am exceptionally happy not to have those guys that believe that in my social circle.

Just 1 or 2 points I picked up on this.
I assuming that the journo in question didnt covertly video any of the event, so cant actually prove any of the alleged behaviour ?
Im not disputing it happened, I can well imagine it did.
But on the face of it ,we have to take her word for it.
So what was her agenda ?
To bring down the event ? Or get some ammo in the dirt bank on some of the attendees ?

I would imagine some of the girls there had worked the event previously ?
Perhaps they would have warned the newcomers what to expect, giving them opportunity to leave if they thought it might be too much for them ?

Some people would find the sight of dead quarry distressing.
However, there are many butchers who have pheasant, rabbit and hare hanging inside and outside their shops, butchers unload carcasses from vehicles, and supermarkets are full of dead meat !
It comes back to that question of who you pander to, does meat now have to kept secret, or kept in non see through packaging, so as not to offend those who find it 'distressing ' ?
 

 

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Just 1 or 2 points I picked up on this.
I assuming that the journo in question didnt covertly video any of the event, so cant actually prove any of the alleged behaviour ?
Im not disputing it happened, I can well imagine it did.
But on the face of it ,we have to take her word for it.
So what was her agenda ?
To bring down the event ? Or get some ammo in the dirt bank on some of the attendees ?

I would imagine some of the girls there had worked the event previously ?
Perhaps they would have warned the newcomers what to expect, giving them opportunity to leave if they thought it might be too much for them ?

Some people would find the sight of dead quarry distressing.
However, there are many butchers who have pheasant, rabbit and hare hanging inside and outside their shops, butchers unload carcasses from vehicles, and supermarkets are full of dead meat !
It comes back to that question of who you pander to, does meat now have to kept secret, or kept in non see through packaging, so as not to offend those who find it 'distressing ' ?
 

 

Good point, made me think in a way I wouldn't have thought of and I'm sure is the reason some of the antis are so rabid with their opinions, in their head they are totally right, they're that offended by the actions of shooters that it should be banned immediately, if you follow the logic through, it doesn't bode well for our sport at all.

[panoma1]

On 24/01/2018 at 11:44, panoma1 said:

Minorities of all types are using an increasingly PC legal system to establish their "rights"...it is like the Human Rghts Act its a great idea but its being abused, which has bought it into disrepute!......

I see Great Ormand St Hospital have been embarrassed into handing back all past donations raised at a private men only club (presidents Club) auction because the women the organisers employed as hospitality staff were groped and propositioned!.....well wealthy men, attractive women, copious amounts of drink, what do the women expect? They can always choose a different occupation, turn the work down, and/or don't have to accept any unwanted advances............Now the militant feminist crusaders are up in arms claiming abuse.........the women got paid, a massive amount of money was raised for Great Ormand Street Hospital..........the ones who have lost out are the sick kids!

Further to this, I now read Great Ormond Street hospital are considering giving in to demands that the money donated to them over the years by the Presidents Club, is not returned after all!......that was my original point..........why should they have considered returning it in the first place?

Great news for the kids eh?

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Further to this, I now read Great Ormond Street hospital are considering giving in to demands that the money donated to them over the years by the Presidents Club, is not returned after all!......that was my original point..........why should they have considered returning it in the first place?

Great news for the kids eh?

They say talking to yourself is the first sign of madness 

[grrclark]

10 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Further to this, I now read Great Ormond Street hospital are considering giving in to demands that the money donated to them over the years by the Presidents Club, is not returned after all!......that was my original point..........why should they have considered returning it in the first place?

Great news for the kids eh?

I agree that they shouldn't have offered to give any money back, it was needless virtue signalling.

Condemn the actions the those that were bad, not everybody was, and then move on.

[old man]

5 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I agree that they shouldn't have offered to give any money back, it was needless virtue signalling.

Condemn the actions the those that were bad, not everybody was, and then move on.

Agreed, sounds a bit like liberal over compensation to give those in charge a way to further ease their collective consciousness with no thought to the reality?

Or maybe they have so much money stashed that it would not have an impact?