• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
No argument from me. Filming without consent is illegal and should be prosecuted. And yes the woman is free to do what she wants. But she, like anyone else, must accept that actions carry consequences and sometimes those consequences, while unintended, can be bad. At the end of the day, the only woman who got filmed giving Mailloux a blowie was the woman who chose to hop into bed with him and give him that blowie. Had she just gone home, nothing would have happened to her. Again, nothing she did was illegal, but was it smart and/or safe? I don't think it was.
Click to expand...
what evidence/indication do you think the woman ought to have had that she was going to be filmed without her consent though? unless you're just saying as a blanket rule young women shouldn't hook up with athletes?

this is where you lose me. other than "guys are assholes" and "athletes more so" why would she think it wasn't smart/safe?

we have the benefit of hindsight and knowing Mailloux is a dinkwad to make our assessments. I don't know what information she would have had at the time to give that indication though.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
And just to be clear, no amount of mitigation in this particular case absolves Mailloux of even one scintilla of legal and criminal responsibility. The woman is still the victim here. But let's not go overboard and say that she is an innocent victim. She wasn't kidnapped and held against her will. She voluntarily entered into a situation fraught with all sorts of risks; risks that she should have considered before getting into bed with a stranger.
Click to expand...
okay, questions for you then: is it ever possible to engage in a risk-free sexual interaction? is it possible she correctly evaluated the risks and was still victimized?
 
Wayward DP said:
what evidence/indication do you think the woman ought to have had that she was going to be filmed without her consent though? unless you're just saying as a blanket rule young women shouldn't hook up with athletes?

this is where you lose me. other than "guys are assholes" and "athletes more so" why would she think it wasn't smart/safe?

we have the benefit of hindsight and knowing Mailloux is a dinkwad to make our assessments. I don't know what information she would have had at the time to give that indication though.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that she was aware that Mailloux was filming and it was at that point when she asked him for reassurance that the images he was filming would not be shared. This part is hard for anyone over a certain age to wrap their heads around. In my day, the woman in question would have freaked out had the guy pulled out a handy-cam or a Polaroid camera. But kids today film literally everything so she probably didn't react that strongly to him picking up his cellphone. She was cool with him filming, she merely wanted it understood that she was not cool with him sharing what he was filming.

And the fact that Mailloux is a hockey player isn't really what's relevant here. What's relevant is that this woman barely knew the guy she was getting into bed with. In this case, it was a hockey player who shared the video with his teammates but it could have just as easily been a guy who works a 9 to 5 job who shared the video with his co-workers. I'm not here to say what women should or shouldn't do or with what kind of guys they should or shouldn't do it with. I'm saying that hooking up with anyone, male or female, who you don't know that well carries risks that you need to consider before you hook up, not after.

Hook up culture is dangerous in and of itself. Hooking up is something we've all done, but it was never not a stupid thing to do. For most of us, we "got away with it" and nothing bad happened to us. We didn't get the clap, didn't get the girl knocked up, or whatever. But the risk that those things could have happened was always there, whether they happened or not. We rolled the dice and hoped that the person we were getting into bed with wasn't malicious or crazy or diseased. We took a risk and had something bad resulted from it, the responsibility for that would be at least partly on us. It's a lot easier for someone to misrepresent themselves and get away with it when the person they are targeting doesn't really know them that well. That's what makes hooking up dangerous and exciting all at once.
 
Wayward DP said:
okay, questions for you then: is it ever possible to engage in a risk-free sexual interaction? is it possible she correctly evaluated the risks and was still victimized?
Click to expand...
Few things in life come without at least some risk and as the old saying goes "If you're very careful, nothing bad or good will ever happen to you." But in this case there is no possible way that she could have accurately calculated the risk because she just didn't know Mailloux that well. From what I read, she barely knew him at all.

It has been proven that we are unable to read people who are strangers to us. There are no "tells", despite what FBI profilers and the like claim. The professionals are no better at spotting liars than the rest of us. So the only way you can make an informed decision about whether or not someone can be trusted (and even then it's not 100% fool proof) is to get to know them at least a little bit before agreeing to "do the thing" with them. This is why hooking up is inherently risky. It's also what makes it attractive. Taking risks can be exciting. But at the end of the day, you make the choice to take the risk or avoid it so if you say yes to the risk and bad things happen, you have to own your part of it.
 
Preston said:
Your boy is slipping, @Wayward DP
Click to expand...
Yup, while he does occasionally make good points on certain issues, every single bit of this entire argument is idiotic. Next he'll be telling us that while rape is technically illegal and the rapist should definitely not be allowed to get away with rape, maybe the woman should think twice next time about wearing that slinky red dress?
 
axlsalinger said:
Yup, while he does occasionally make good points on certain issues, every single bit of this entire argument is idiotic. Next he'll be telling us that while rape is technically illegal and the rapist should definitely not be allowed to get away with rape, maybe the woman should think twice next time about wearing that slinky red dress?
Click to expand...
I respect his incredible determination to dig his own grave. The nonsensical 5000 word post rambling was a classic vintage Presto method of trying to explain dumbass viewpoints so I feel I am an expert on WeHave when he gets like this.
 
axlsalinger said:
Yup, while he does occasionally make good points on certain issues, every single bit of this entire argument is idiotic. Next he'll be telling us that while rape is technically illegal and the rapist should definitely not be allowed to get away with rape, maybe the woman should think twice next time about wearing that slinky red dress?
Click to expand...
I have him blocked, but whenever I used to read his posts, this song would play in my head:

 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
There is a world of difference between legal responsibility and personal responsibility
Click to expand...

Not even remotely true. Personal & legal responsibility are inextricably link. Legal responsibility largely exists to mark the reasonable boundaries of where personal responibility of multiple parties overlap into harmful territory. When your personal philosophy requires them to be "worlds" apart, it's due to you being insanely judgemental. A level of judgement that as a trained and experienced risk assessment/mitigation professional, I could turn on you very easily and show you to be at least as "dumb" as people you're more than happy to judge. This is a device you use to feel a weird sense of superiority over victims.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
But in the example you put forth about walking through a bad neighborhood I would say that the person in question is being stupid each and every time they take that walk, whether something happens to them or not.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the human population lives in locations with imperfect personal safety conditions and even then only a very small minority will ever be victims of violence. Again, your requirements here for someone to not be "dumb" are fucking insane. Said person would have to improve their economic condition (without ever leaving their home, apparently) and move to somewhere with a complete absence of crime to meet your requirements for not being "dumb".

I don't even know where to start on the sexual angle here though. The idea that Mailloux's victim is in any way to blame here for having a sexual relationship that doesn't meet some weird familiarity requirement with him is full blow idiocy. I'm actually interested in knowing what you would consider reasonable before she blows him because I can't find much detail about the nature of their relationship other than when the incident happened (Nov 7) and that he had arrived in Sweden "shortly" before. HockeyEttan's schedule starts in September, so he likely arrived in September. 1.5-2 months isn't enough time to develop a sexual relationship that isn't "dumb"?
 
Neurospasm said:
I just don’t fully agree on this. Of course the person causing harm is the main problem. That part is quite obviously true. If as a harmless person you know that you are putting yourself in a high risk scenario then you have also put yourself in a scenario to be partially at fault. The key thing for me is if you know the dangers and still go ahead with something.
Click to expand...

What defines a "high risk" scenario though? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 1000?

Risk is all a numbers game. Everything you do in life carries risk at some level. 800 people a year in North America die from getting tangled up in their bed sheets. There is no such thing as zero risk. This is why so much of this conversation boils down to weirdo social and personal biases.

So much of the conversation about these alleged "high risk" is reverse engineered after a bad thing happens. It's a device that people who don't actually understand risk use to ensure themselves that they're too smart for "insert bad thing here" to happen to them.

People largely hate how random life (and risk) actually are. A lot of us need the illusion of control.
 
For example....the same people who consider this young woman's behaviour "risky" or "dumb" drove to work today and almost everyone cooks in their kitchen multiple times a day without a working fire extinguisher within 100 fucking meters of them.
 
You need to know that people have had roofies put in their drinks multiple times before in human history. Do you really know what someone did to your drink if you go to use the bathroom, or look the other way for more than 5 seconds?

It's not your fault if someone puts a roofie in your drink, obviously, but if you just never take a sip of any beverage at any time at any bar, restaurant or person's house, you can never ingest a roofie. If you're at a cocktail party and you're a little thirsty, even if you think you're among friends, just put on your shoes, walk 20 minutes down the street to the nearest convenience store, and purchase a bottle of water that is clearly sealed and has not been tampered with. Just remember that if you put it in your pocket and return to the party, it's technically no longer sealed and someone can undo the cap and slip a roofie if you're not paying attention.

If you want to drink wine instead of water, just keep a corked and sealed bottle in a backpack and never let it out of your sight. It's called personal responsibility!
 
axlsalinger said:
You need to know that people have had roofies put in their drinks multiple times before in human history. Do you really know what someone did to your drink if you go to use the bathroom, or look the other way for more than 5 seconds?

It's not your fault if someone puts a roofie in your drink, obviously, but if you just never take a sip of any beverage at any time at any bar, restaurant or person's house, you can never ingest a roofie. If you're at a cocktail party and you're a little thirsty, even if you think you're among friends, just put on your shoes, walk 20 minutes down the street to the nearest convenience store, and purchase a bottle of water that is clearly sealed and has not been tampered with. Just remember that if you put it in your pocket and return to the party, it's technically no longer sealed and someone can undo the cap and slip a roofie if you're not paying attention.

If you want to drink wine instead of water, just keep a corked and sealed bottle in a backpack and never let it out of your sight. It's called personal responsibility!
Click to expand...

What are you doing in a bar in the first place!!!! So risky and dumb!
 
Preston said:
Your boy is slipping, @Wayward DP
Click to expand...
I mean, yes and no. he gets into these longwinded narratives where he seems to often shoot himself in the foot and undermine his valid points with many more silly ones.

I think the one point that is getting lost in all this that I am least somewhat sympathetic towards (and maybe this is a generational attitude, I don't know) is that I would absolutely never let anyone I just met start filming me performing a sex act. I am of the view that that is a foolish decision pretty much no matter the circumstances.

It in no way places any blameworthiness on the victim here though. People can make poor decisions and not be at fault for what happens next. And it may be in poor taste to point those decisions out after someone is victimized, and keep focussing on them rather than discussing all the other parts of the interaction, sure.
axlsalinger said:
You need to know that people have had roofies put in their drinks multiple times before in human history. Do you really know what someone did to your drink if you go to use the bathroom, or look the other way for more than 5 seconds?

It's not your fault if someone puts a roofie in your drink, obviously, but if you just never take a sip of any beverage at any time at any bar, restaurant or person's house, you can never ingest a roofie. If you're at a cocktail party and you're a little thirsty, even if you think you're among friends, just put on your shoes, walk 20 minutes down the street to the nearest convenience store, and purchase a bottle of water that is clearly sealed and has not been tampered with. Just remember that if you put it in your pocket and return to the party, it's technically no longer sealed and someone can undo the cap and slip a roofie if you're not paying attention.

If you want to drink wine instead of water, just keep a corked and sealed bottle in a backpack and never let it out of your sight. It's called personal responsibility!
Click to expand...
honestly I think this is a pretty poor example. if I had a daughter (or, hell, a son too), I would feel negligent if I did not instruct them to never leave their drinks unattended when out at a bar.

unless your position is that individuals bear no responsibility for their own wellbeing? obviously the reality is somewhere in between. I think its disingenuous to pretend as though it is zero sum.
 
MindzEye said:
For example....the same people who consider this young woman's behaviour "risky" or "dumb" drove to work today and almost everyone cooks in their kitchen multiple times a day without a working fire extinguisher within 100 fucking meters of them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if their house burns down, that will be the first question the insurance adjuster asks them. "What steps did you take to mitigate the risk? Oh, you didn't have a working fire extinguisher, you say? Welp, I guess your premiums will be going way up, won't they?"
 
Preston said:
I respect his incredible determination to dig his own grave. The nonsensical 5000 word post rambling was a classic vintage Presto method of trying to explain dumbass viewpoints so I feel I am an expert on WeHave when he gets like this.
Click to expand...
it is a well established principle of internet message boards that as a poster, you may never back down. only further entrench in even the most ridiculous or extreme positions
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Yeah, and if their house burns down, that will be the first question the insurance adjuster asks them. "What steps did you take to mitigate the risk? Oh, you didn't have a working fire extinguisher, you say? Welp, I guess your premiums will be going way up, won't they?"
Click to expand...

You're (intentionally) missing the point though. You...the individual you...does things that are far "dumber" and more risky every day than what you're more than happy to call people dumb for doing. So you're either a massive hypocrite, or blissfully ignorant.
 
MindzEye said:
Not even remotely true. Personal & legal responsibility are inextricably link. Legal responsibility largely exists to mark the reasonable boundaries of where personal responibility of multiple parties overlap into harmful territory. When your personal philosophy requires them to be "worlds" apart, it's due to you being insanely judgemental. A level of judgement that as a trained and experienced risk assessment/mitigation professional, I could turn on you very easily and show you to be at least as "dumb" as people you're more than happy to judge. This is a device you use to feel a weird sense of superiority over victims.


The vast majority of the human population lives in locations with imperfect personal safety conditions and even then only a very small minority will ever be victims of violence. Again, your requirements here for someone to not be "dumb" are fucking insane. Said person would have to improve their economic condition (without ever leaving their home, apparently) and move to somewhere with a complete absence of crime to meet your requirements for not being "dumb".

I don't even know where to start on the sexual angle here though. The idea that Mailloux's victim is in any way to blame here for having a sexual relationship that doesn't meet some weird familiarity requirement with him is full blow idiocy. I'm actually interested in knowing what you would consider reasonable before she blows him because I can't find much detail about the nature of their relationship other than when the incident happened (Nov 7) and that he had arrived in Sweden "shortly" before. HockeyEttan's schedule starts in September, so he likely arrived in September. 1.5-2 months isn't enough time to develop a sexual relationship that isn't "dumb"?
Click to expand...
I don't know where you think that I am exempting myself from any of this. I've done plenty of dumb, risky things in my time. I was once robbed at knifepoint when I took a shortcut through an alley. It was broad daylight so I figured I was safe. I wasn't. But as it turned out the guy who robbed me was high as a kite and I managed to delay him to the point where I was lucky enough to see a cop and get his attention. The thief was arrested and charged.

Months later I was contacted by Crown Counsel advising me that the thief had pleaded not guilty in the hope that I wouldn't show up for his trial. I showed up and he was put away for 6 or 9 months. When cross examined by his lawyer they tried to make it about my bad decision. But I told the court that while I freely admitted to being stupid, last time I checked being stupid wasn't a crime nor an excuse for anyone else to commit a crime against that stupid person.

I always knew that what the guy did was illegal and for that he deserved to be punished. It was, after all, an armed robbery. But I also knew I was guilty of exercising poor judgement and that had I not cut through that alley, I wouldn't have been robbed in the first place. So I was at least partly responsible for my own misfortune. And had I been dealing with a different robber I might have been stabbed to death. Any number of bad outcomes could have ensued as a result of my original bad decision. After that I stopped taking shortcuts and haven't been robbed since. But I accept my responsibility in the incident. It's my shit and I own it.

That girl in Sweden needs to own her shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top