Amber Heard V Johnny Depp

maxyzee on 31/05/2022 - 14:09
Last edited 02/06/2022 - 07:53 by 1 other user

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve really delved myself into this trial. It’s been the most guilty pleasure. Like a real life drama playing out.

Anyway I started out quite neutral thinking they both had equal share of the blame but now as this trial has gone on and the more evidence gets bought up it’s unequivocally clear that Johnny Depp is actually nearly entirely innocent and that Amber Heard is a real absolute monster. The lengths that she would go to, even falsifying evidence and now has the real possibility of being charged with perjury. I’m now firmly in the JD camp and hope the verdict goes his way.

Anyway I was wondering what OzBargain might also have thought?

Edit: Depp has won his case! There is some justice in this world. And yes it’s not something more serious like gun control or climate change or whatever but I think this is still important especially for male victims of DV.

I’ll add a poll.

Poll Options

601
Team Johnny
33
Team Amber

Entertainment

Comments

- filmer on 03/06/2022 - 16:34
  
  +5
  
  Heard did not win in the UK. The Sun did.
  
  Heard did not have to testify and the main reason for the verdict was that the judge did not believe that heard could lie to such an extent based on her outward character. So based on that fact they ruled that the sun was reporting the 'truth'.
  
  Anyone who saw this trial knows that heard could absolutely lie for her own gain.
tonka on 03/06/2022 - 16:17

A dude in his fifties marries someone in their twenties, a woman in their twenties marries a dude in his fifties. Why did this relationship exist, sure there a slight chance it was true love (lol). More likely levels of opportunism, narcissism, exploitation etc. Both these people from their described behavior are likely to have mistreated the other. The fact that it's escalated to what is likely court bashing at this level shows a level of destructive behavior. What I find concerning is the public opinion (mob) that wants to witch burn Amber and canonize Depp, this whole mob emotional investment thing creepy as f. There's no heroes here and likely these people think us regular joes are unworthy pond scum. But I reckon, if you want to vilify someone go after a pedo, not some dopey actress with bad judgement.
- filmer on 03/06/2022 - 16:37
  
  +1
  
  You are obviously biased. Marriage between a 29 year old and 51 year old is quite outside the norm, but to label them a pedo? And using this fact to blame the older one, even though at 29 year olds you are making your own choices. Ridiculous.
  - tonka on 03/06/2022 - 17:00
    
    -4
    
    Who am I labeling a pedo? I said go after a pedo, you will need to find one for yourself. And if you read well you would realize I laid blame on no one, not older, not younger.
    - filmer on 03/06/2022 - 17:06
      
      +2
      
      Talk about gaslighting. You have a huge spiel about the case. Then say don't go after the actress, but go after the pedo. Then claim you are referring to someone else?
      - tonka on 03/06/2022 - 17:15
        
        -4
        
        @filmer: OK, I'm guess you think I'm referring to Depp as a pedo? You've made that connection all on your own. Amber is and was of consenting age. So to clarify for you, if you want to hate on someone, pick someone evil like a pedo, not dumb Hollywood jerks.
        And don't gaslight me by calling me a gaslighter, isn't that the kind of thing you're hating on Amber for?.
        
        filmer on 03/06/2022 - 17:30
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: Don't know man, you are comparing the two of them, you bring up the age difference, then you bring up pedos in the same sentence you make reference to amber. You really can't blame anyone for making the connection.
        
        tonka on 03/06/2022 - 17:46
        
        -2
        
        @filmer: You know what, I never did make the connection that was you. But since you did I looked him up and ew, this is a thing, dating teenagers in his late 20's, moved in with a 23 year old after Heard. Doesn't make him a Pedo, but it is something I find creepy. I'm in my fifties and the thought of being with someone that could nearly be a grandchild I find gross.
- kanmen on 03/06/2022 - 17:14
  
  +1
  
  Dude in his fifties has an evident pattern of dating women significantly younger than him too…interesting hey
  - payton on 03/06/2022 - 18:59
    
    dating women significantly younger than him
    
    lots of examples in Hollywood
    https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-men-who-married-much-youn…
    
    When its reversed, the double standard means the old woman is a 'cougar' and there is 'nothing creepy about it'
    - tonka on 03/06/2022 - 19:14
      
      +1
      
      It's all creepy dude. And if there's a double standard it's the other way around because with women they created a label for it (cougar) but guys it's just unremarkable.
      Just because something is 'normal' in Hollywood doesn't make it not weird or creepy. It's Hollywood confusion about what is 'normal' that exposed us all to this drama.
      - filmer on 06/06/2022 - 16:17
        
        @tonka: Two adults having a relationship is creepy? He isn't dating 18-year-olds here.
        
        tonka on 06/06/2022 - 23:00
        
        @filmer: No,not for a while (that we know of). The last one we know of he tried to get engaged to was around 22 I think. And of course that's a guaranteed healthy relationship, a 22 year old is bound to feel completely content married to wino grandpa .
        
        filmer on 07/06/2022 - 13:49
        
        @tonka: Wasn't johnny only like 30 when he was dating someone 22 years old, hardly a grandpa.
        
        tonka on 07/06/2022 - 17:13
        
        @filmer: He dated someone 22 (and was supposedly engaged) after Amber.
        
        filmer on 09/06/2022 - 15:19
        
        @tonka: Yeah, you've pulled that one out of your arse.
        
        tonka on 09/06/2022 - 17:21
        
        @filmer: I'm not sure if you are too lazy to Google it and saying I'm wrong, or suggesting the truth can be found up my arse?
        
        filmer on 10/06/2022 - 15:06
        
        @tonka: I tried googling, and what you said was not verified. So yes, either you take rumours as truth, or you pulled it out of your arse.
        
        tonka on 10/06/2022 - 23:23
        
        -3
        
        @filmer: All good mate, at this point I'm giving more credibility to anything out of my arse than your googling skills.
        
        filmer on 12/06/2022 - 11:07
        
        @tonka: It's tough to find those gossip blogs with unverified information
- whatwasherproblem on 04/06/2022 - 18:40
  
  But I reckon, if you want to vilify someone go after a pedo, not some dopey actress with bad judgement.
  
  Pedos are monsters that hurt the most innocent living beings though, there's nothing funny about them and laughing at them (even in schadenfreude) is distasteful. On the other hand, the drugged-up, cashed-up lying bed-sh.tting trophy wife of some ridiculous hasbeen actor? Prime lolcow material.
  - tonka on 08/06/2022 - 13:20
    
    Vilify doesn't mean laughing at. But it seems you agree with my point that pedos are more worthy of people's dislike and hate energy. Dopey actress are more worthy are disregard.
[Deactivated] on 03/06/2022 - 16:59

+1

Amber spewed all lies, pretended to be domestic abuse victim and duped a lot of people and organisations for her gain, I really hope her career is over.
maxyzee on 03/06/2022 - 17:12

So it seems pretty clear that the sentiment is that Amber Heard lied and was the real abuser.

I do wonder however if she could redeem herself by coming out publicly and confessing and apologising. She could have some as semblance of her career back.

What would be the most interesting is seeing how the MSM especially Newscorp scrambles to deal with it. They’ve really dug their heels in and sticking with with AH at the moment.
InLaymansTerms on 03/06/2022 - 19:27

+10

I’m constantly hearing noise now how this win for JD sets the clock back for women.

This sadens me.
It’s as if it’s impossible for a male to be a victim and a female to be a perpetrator.
Regardless that after all the evidence, a judge and jury uncovered the truth. This now somehow goes against women??

It’s got nothing to do with women and everything to do with the perpetrator of domestic violence.

I would argue that all AH did was set the clock back for women by making false allegations, she was clearly lying and took everyone for a fool.

DV is a horrible thing regardless of who is the perpetrator. It should never be permitted in modern society.

I would like to see more support for men.
I constantly see posters on busses and around town “violence against women”
There are hot lines to call.
Websites.
Days.
Moments of silence.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it 110%.
But I’ve never seen anything to support men or provide us with a support system.

I personally know several men who have been beaten by their partners or former partners.
The law comes down much harder on men for a similar or equal crime of DV.
There is quite a lot of hypocrisy.

we need to start looking at the word “equality” and take it literally.
Equal.

Now we go into this modern version of feminism.
All man hatey.
IMO feminism was a great idea in its early conception. It was all about equality.
Now these modern feminists pushed way past equal and want modern men to suffer for the sins of the men of the past.
Any reasonable males these days would agree with equality.

For a woman to succeed a man has to lose.
Why can’t we all rise up together.

If we keep teaching genders, races etc to be victims we will never move forward as a society.
Teaching people to be victims.
Like national sorry day. I wasn’t even born when all that went down yet I have to apologise every year.
You could point at any human being regardless of who they are and where they are from, we all have our own horror story.

Stop being a victim. Be a survivor.
I know I’m going off track now, it’s just frustrating seeing so much social justice bullshit.

Even the LGBTQLMNOP shit.
Half the gay men and women I know say when did gays give permission to throw them into the same bucket as people who want a sex change?

It’s unbelievable how unhinged society has become.

Now at work, I have to use the right pronouns if a person born a male who decided at age 40 he’s now a women.
I have to submit and go against my beliefs.
Tell my children your gender is malleable.
If I don’t follow, I lose my job.
I am never rude to anyone but don’t force me to ignore the facts that every chromosome in that persons body is male.

/rant over
- MessyG on 03/06/2022 - 21:32
  
  -3
  
  You seem really wounded by all this and I have a question. What does acknowledging and validating anothers existence take away from you exactly?
  
  The violence against women media is there because of the disproportionately high statistics. And it's because women have banded together in support for each other. More men are responsible for the deaths of women AND men than any other group, yet we never see men organising vigils to support men murdered by men (or anyone really), it's all hijacking of violence against women posts. It's all anti-feminism and anti-social justice, instead of banding together and ending all the drivers that cause violence against everyone. Why aren't men organising vigils with each other to lift each other up and support each other, instead of this constant campaign of hate against everyone else that does nothing for anyone?
  - InLaymansTerms on 03/06/2022 - 22:00
    
    +4
    
    Hey MissG.
    I never said anything about not acknowledging anyone else’s existence.
    I was saying don’t force me to use certain pronouns that aren’t true.
    Facts don’t care about peoples feelings.
    I will never be rude to an individual that chooses a certain lifestyle or life choice. Just don’t force it down my throat or expect me to comply or else lose my career.
    
    I’ll stand beside you all day to fight domestic violence against women, will you stand with me to fight DV against men?
    
    The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey (PSS) in 2016 indicated that since the age of 15:
    1 in 16 men have experienced physical or sexual violence.
    
    Not including all the men who don’t speak up for very similar reasons as to why women also do not.
    I would dare say there are a lot of men who will never speak up. Just as women.
    
    Im not denying that the statistics do lean towards women suffering from DV more than men however it’s becoming increasingly and alarmingly more common for a woman to be a perpetrator of domestic violence.
    
    Where are you pulling your statistics from?
    
    If my post triggered you.
    I apologise I was expressing my disappointment and frustration to the way the world has become. With cancel culture and METOO, believe all women.
    
    Men to this day are expected to “man up”.
    We are very rarely encouraged to speak up. Men tend to hold a lot more in and not be as confident as women to discuss their emotions or feelings. It’s something that needs to change.
    
    So you don’t think men should get the same or equal amount of attention when it comes to DV as women?
    
    I sincerely feel for everyone. Both sexes.
    However there is a lot to be answered for when we discuss “equality”.
    
    I hate that I even have to say this.
    By I was a victim of DV from a ex girlfriend. No one supported me.
    She was younger. Pretty. Anyone I told laughed.
    
    Why should men have to organise vigils?
    If that helps you ladies cope with things please tell me where I can help. I’ll support the women all day.
    If I see any support groups for women or “vigils” half the time there are just as many men there with the women supporting them.
    
    So in response to your post.
    Im not anti-feminist, I support what feminism was originally intended to be about. Equality.
    Not this mutated 2022 anti-male rhetoric.
    I am definitely anti-social Justice. I can’t stand these people who force their beliefs down other people‘s throats or face being canceled.
    - MessyG on 04/06/2022 - 08:57
      
      -4
      
      Lets talk about the sexual violence towards men stat you've got there because it's actually probably much higher than that. There are so. many. men who have been sexually assaulted before the age of 18 (the US state is 1 in 4 which is probably closer to the truth) and no one talks about it. Largely because the perpetrators are other men.
      
      There is so. much. undeclared and undiscussed trauma in men who don't want to face it. You wonder why women organise vigils? Because they're facing their trauma. The only people expecting men to 'man up' are other men.
      
      You want to know why the LGBTIQ movement, why the sorry day movement pisses you off so much? It's because they're facing their trauma.
      
      Until the huge proportion of men affected start speaking their truth, the rest of the world moving on with their own baggage is always going to feel like an affront. So whether you've been assaulted by a man or woman, sticking the boot into other traumatised groups is never going to help you move through it. Organising, supporting each other, getting help, working through it together - that's what's going to heal you.
      - InLaymansTerms on 04/06/2022 - 09:19
        
        +8
        
        @MessyG: So you didn’t reply to my questions. Which is what I assumed you would do.
        Which is why I find it difficult when someone from the right is trying to debate someone the left with logic and facts. Not emotions.
        
        I think we can agree that a lot of both men and women suffer.
        Let’s stand together and fight that, shall we?
        
        Thanks for telling me what I’m thinking and how I feel. Your assumptions are not constructive.
        
        “The only people expecting men to 'man up' are other men.”
        Did you watch the JD/AD trial?
        I’m pretty sure a major moment in that trial is a piece of audio evidence where AH is recorded saying. Go tell a judge a jury that I JD, a “man” am a victim of DV. Go see what the world thinks.
        
        So no, it’s not only men who are telling other men to man up.
        
        Go speak to people in the LG part of LGBTQ…
        
        Most of them will say I never was asked to take a vote if being a homosexual should be placed into the same category as an individual wanting a sex change, as someone decided to remove their penis, as someone who now identifies as non binary.
        That is the social Justice that I despise.
        
        It doesn’t “piss me off” because people are facing their trauma.
        I’m all for it. If that helps you, tell me how I can help.
        
        It frustrates me because I am supposed to say sorry for things that happened to other people that I did not do.
        I’m most cases. I was not even alive at that time. Do I empathise with them. Yes. 110%.
        Will I support them. Yes.
        Should I be coerced into saying sorry. No.
        Should I be made to feel guilty. No.
        
        When it comes to gender identity, I would never be impolite or rude to a individual.
        But I draw a line when I am forced to say a woman is now a man and I should teach my children anyone can wake up and decide they are someone different.
        
        What about when a 40 year old man who still has his male appendages decides he is now a woman and wants to use the female toilets. I’m assuming your a women if I am incorrect I apologise.
        Will you be comfortable when a women exposes his penis next to you into the toilets?
        Or when a young girl is using the toilet and a grown man walks in because he decided that’s his gender identity now?
        What’s stopping sex criminals from using the same cover story?
        
        When they are adults. If they decide they are gay or they feel a certain way. Ok I’ll support you.
        But let kids be kids, let them have a childhood first. wait until they can comprehend the thoughts they are having as an adult.
        
        If a little boy wants to play with dolls and dress up as a girl. It doesn’t mean I should rush him to the nearest gender reassignment clinic.
  - SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 11:06
    
    +1
    
    What does acknowledging and validating anothers existence take away from you exactly?
    
    lol this idea that you need to conform to someone else's reality otherwise you're "denying their existence" is just disingenuous. Pronouns are a social construct (doesn't that mean they're arbitrary and useless?). You can exist, and other people can treat you as if you exist, without using your made up words.
    
    I can just as easily claim that anyone who refuses to proclaim "SlavOz is king" whenever they see me is denying my existence. If I see myself as the king the world, and it's the only thing that I've ever felt comfortable being called, you shouldn't be allowed to deny it.
- tonka on 04/06/2022 - 12:51
  
  -1
  
  I am a feminist, I believe in the ideal of equality, and I find your evaluation offensive. Is it possible perhaps there are plenty of feminists male and female who aren't 'hatey'. Being a feminist doesn't make someone an a-hole, being an a-hole does. Personally I'm sick of the constant dodgy remarks and undermining about feminism. We'd all be happier if everyone would stop contesting gender equality.
  - InLaymansTerms on 04/06/2022 - 13:04
    
    +3
    
    As a male. If you have not clearly and concisely read all my comments. I also am a feminist. If feminism means equal/equality.
    I’m all for it.
    
    I’m not saying all feminists are the same but there is most certainly a large portion of women who identify as feminists but use it as a weapon against men. Who demonise all men.
    They aren’t feminists who support equality.
    
    So in response to your remarks that I am somehow undermining womens rights. You could not be more wrong.
    
    What also concerns me is this social justice warriors.
    The court of social justice.
    If you found something I said offensive, I should therefor lose my job and be forever banished.
    Cancel culture. All this stuff is spawned from these offshoots of what was originally a great idea or equality.
    Just like BLM. If I said I agree but all lives matter.
    I’m racist.
    Doesn’t sound very equal to me.
    - tonka on 04/06/2022 - 14:19
      
      -1
      
      I'm objecting to your broadbrush of feminism being hatey. There may be some, not a large portion, but perhaps vocal, who are combative and use it as a platform. Same as religion, environment, race or anything, some may use it as a platform to be self righteous. In those cases it is not the cause that is a problem but the individual who has hijacked it. I do appreciate your advocating equality. I am just concerned about the way feminism is constantly being branded in online public opinion as nasty. Seems we are sliding backwards.
bmerigan on 03/06/2022 - 22:20

I'm Team Johnny but was sure that Amber would win given all of what Team Johnny had to actually prove.
Eeples on 03/06/2022 - 22:25

+1

I've watched a few hours on youtube so obviously an expert :/

I think that Johnny may have abused Amber but Amber caught in her many lies made it impossible for the jury to side with her.

I think it was a reasonable decision.

EDIT: As I've said to young men recently. Johnny is also to blame as he chose her. To young men: Do not choose someone like Amber Heard. And Young men say: As if I could ever get someone like Amber Heard.
(Good grief)
- [Deactivated] on 03/06/2022 - 22:55
  
  Johnny is also to blame as he chose her.
  
  To be honest this is easier said than done. Someone can be charming and well put together on the surface, but a completely different person behind closed doors. Some people's true personality along with their flaws may not even surface till years into a relationship since they're usually on their best behaviour in the initial honeymoon phase. Even Johnny's closest friends and employees described Amber as a charming, witty and pleasant person in most of their initial interactions.
  
  If it were as easy as 'just picking a good partner' then divorce numbers would be a lot lower than they are now, lol.
  - Eeples on 03/06/2022 - 23:57
    
    This is probably an argument for a long engagement.
- cinnamink on 04/06/2022 - 01:28
  
  +3
  
  I found it really hard to believe he physically abused Amber Heard, considering how she mocked him always run away when they had a fight in more than one of the audio recordings.
MrThing on 04/06/2022 - 08:14

+3

metoo era is now dead

this has just brought to the lime light that women CAN abuse men - despite what the #metoo movement said
- MessyG on 04/06/2022 - 08:59
  
  +2
  
  I don't recall the #metoo movement ever saying that women don't abuse men. The whole movement was about the systematic abuse of women and those in power using their influence to make sure it never saw the light of day…
  - SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 10:34
    
    No, the fundamental premise of #metoo was "believe all women". This was the scripture and First Commandement of the movement.
    
    The progressives refused to even acknowledge the possibility that women are human and that all humans lie. Finding out that a woman was the aggressor and then lied about it multiple times (using her status a woman) basically puts the movement in the place it always belonged - in the trash can of history.
    - maxyzee on 17/06/2022 - 11:42
      
      No #metoo morphed into #beleiveallwomen after the whole debacle with Kavennah being sworn in 2018.
      You don’t think without #metoo Weinstein would have been bought to justice? Or many of the other actual abusers?
      Yes #metoo has been weaponised into this beleiveallwomen thing which then allows for liars and insidious players to bolster themselves but I don’t think #metoo was originally for that. It morphed into that.
- tonka on 18/06/2022 - 01:02
  
  Many of the high profile 'me too' claimants were men by the way.
bryans on 04/06/2022 - 10:01

+2

It's a disgrace this gets more attention in US than the 19 school kids shot dead
sparkles on 04/06/2022 - 14:05

+1
My main takeaways from this case:

Pledge and donate aren't the same thing, no matter how much you try to convince yourself

If you are trash and manage to marry a good looking generous rich dude, try to be nice, don't be psycho

Habitual lying is bad as no one is able to keep such a huge a web of lies straight

If you are a lawyer, vet your clients first
5, If someone is bashing you, be sure to film the actual assault. Film them sleeping doesn't count.
- payton on 04/06/2022 - 14:37
  
  +1
  
  .6. Dont make up fake stories about being bashed
- whatwasherproblem on 04/06/2022 - 18:49
  
  My main takeaway was yes it actually is possible to jeopardize your own case through sheer incompetence and just generally being a worthless oxygen-thief that you lose what should've been a relatively safe defense against a defamation claim.
Davo1111 on 04/06/2022 - 14:11

Neither, both are not upstanding citizens
syousef on 04/06/2022 - 17:31

+5
So sick of the people saying

They're both as bad as each other.

No. They're not. They both did horrible things. But that doesn't mean one didn't push the other and instigate. Some of what JD said and did makes me very uncomfortable including when he joked with his friend about drowning and burning her. That's not on. But with all the things AH did, and the number of times he walked away, making those jokes is nowhere near as bad as making up allegations, falsifying evidence, goading someone to fight you then telling him the world won't believe him etc.

-. This sets back female victims of abuse.

No it doesn't. The presumption of innocence should never have been in question. The idea that one gender doesn't lie is on the face of it ridiculous. Victims should be believed in sofar as their claims should be honestly and fully investigated. If there is no proof, there should be no punishment, and that includes both from the legal system and public "cancel culture".

If you only want justice for one gender, you don't want justice at all, and you're part of the problem. There is no substitute for genuinely supporting ALL victims of abuse. That's not whataboutism. It's not "men too". It's actual genuine justice.
- whatwasherproblem on 04/06/2022 - 18:57
  
  This sets back female victims of abuse
  
  You're right that it doesn't/shouldn't. However the worthless mainstream media is hellbent on making sure this Depp-Heard thing crashes what's left of the #MeToo movement with no survivors and that future victims suffer forevermore. As seen here. Also here. And here, here, here, here and here.
Mysterious on 04/06/2022 - 18:09
Have a few things to say about it:

it's really amazing how everyone somehow knows what happened behind closed doors, as if they were there? No one truly knows every exact detail except for the two of them.

if I was forced to give my own verdict, probably Heard exaggerated her claims and Depp was actually somewhat abusive, but I think she was the main abuser in the relationship.

maybe people will think twice before abusing their partners (male and female)

none of our business tbh but I'm bored so I'll chime in
- syousef on 05/06/2022 - 06:38
  
  The evidence wasn't just he said she said about what happened behind closed doors. There was stuff like faked photos, and the Op Ed she wrote.
  
  As for "maybe people will think twice before abusing their partners (male and female)" - I wish but the sort of person that does that is either too nasty or too mentally ill for this trial to have any impact sadly.
sildosaggins on 15/06/2022 - 16:49

+1

The crazy part is how the media continues to kiss her arse even after she has lost and after viewing all the evidence that has been put forth in court. Well done Johnny, after watching hours of that trial I believe you mate.
- SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 10:40
  
  +1
  
  Doubling down on stupid is the only thing the media can do after being caught out in their web of lies. They do this all the time.
  
  After George Pell's conviction was overturned, the ABC (who spent a good year declaring him guilty via a journalist who literally wrote a book demonising him earlier) then tried to weasel out by saying "yea but he's still guilty, it's just a technicality!"
  
  Absolutely shameless witch hunts and narrative storyboards from these megacorps disguised as journalism. To think that ABC gets public funding is simply ludicrous.
  - maxyzee on 17/06/2022 - 11:50
    
    +1
    
    Yes the MSM has a lot to answer for. Doubling down with AH really doesn’t help their case of being trustworthy at all.
    However I think George Pell also has a lot to answer for. Yeah he wasn’t an abuser, he never struck me as someone that would commit anything like that but he did institute a system of intimidation and suppression of the victims of the Catholic Church. His comment about abortion being a bigger moral crisis than the Church’s child abuse just shows him trying deflect attention away from the Church’s crimes. I guess he did his job well in saving the Church a huge amount of money in compo payments.
    - SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 12:56
      
      Well, that is your opinion. Pell himself set up the Melbourne Response - which was a compensation scheme for victims of clergy abuse. Maybe he could've done more. Maybe the program could've been better. But this certainly doesn't excuse people lying about him or the media leading a witch hunt based on nothing but anti-church sentiment. This type of behaviour is far more dangerous to our democracy and justice system than anything the Church has done.
      
      Catholics believe that life begins at conception and therefore an unborn baby is just as valuable as any other human - a position backed by the majority of biologists. I don't think it's objectively unreasonable or controversial to think that child murder is worse than child abuse. Of course, you are free to disagree.
      - maxyzee on 17/06/2022 - 13:40
        
        @SlavOz: Yes correct he set up the Melbourne response. The whole purpose of it was to minimise the damage to the Catholic Church by getting victims to sign NDAs if they wanted to see any compo whilst at the very same time framing it as some sort of program to help victims. A very AH thing to do.
        
        It was the success from this that lead him to being a throws arm away from papacy itself.
        
        Yeah people can believe whatever they want to believe but based secular system society doesn’t decide what’s right and wrong based on religious beliefs. I think objectively without a religious lense you can agree that abortion is no where near child abuse.
        
        And a man like GP who was in the position that he was in, knowing a Australia or any modern western country that is based on secular customs and norms would have known the objective societal belief was that child abuse in the Catholic Church was and remains a huge problem and that abortion is no where near in the realm of a problem to society as child abuse.
        
        SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 14:55
        
        @maxyzee: So he shouldn't be allowed to say that abortion is worse than child abuse simply because most people don't agree?
        
        That's absurd. We don't live under a groupthink system. You are allowed to disagree with the majority. Like I said, his position is objectively reasonable. The majority of people once thought that women weren't allowed to vote or that Aboroginals didn't deserve human rights. Doesn't mean people shouldn't speak out when they see injustice.
        
        We may be a secular nation (whatever that means) but many people in Australia and the Western world still believe in Christian values and look to the Church for guidance and direction. This is no different to the countless other sources of morality or advice that people seek. Whether you like it or not, our system cannot just completely dismiss Christian values as this alienates a significant chunk of our population. But this logic we might as well say we shouldn't have to recognise Aboriginal presence or their beliefs either.
        
        maxyzee on 17/06/2022 - 15:54
        
        @SlavOz: Of course he should be allowed to say whatever. It doesn’t mean that it’s not disingenuous and a poor reflection of his morals.
        
        Yes the position is reasonable if you’re a complete religious nutcase that has no idea about how the world works. But he is not so therefore it’s a disingenuous statement.
        
        Yes you’re right a significant portion of the population still espouse religious beliefs and look to religion for their morals and guidance. And it’s a sad state of affairs that this is the case. IMO humanity as a whole will be better off once it dismisses religion as relic of the past. The secular values that we have are in spite of religion (I.e separation of church and state) and the world is very slowly moving away from religions and superstitions.
        
        Do you really think that it was a foundation of the Christian ideals that allowed us to move past our prejudices and recognise the Aboriginal peoples and their beliefs?
        
        SlavOz on 22/06/2022 - 11:51
        
        @maxyzee:
        
        It doesn’t mean that it’s not disingenuous and a poor reflection of his morals.
        
        I really don't know how a senior religious member espousing a religious belief is supposed to be disingenuous.
        
        Yes the position is reasonable if you’re a complete religious nutcase that has no idea about how the world works.
        
        This is just ignoring the facts. You don't have to be religious at all to recognise the ethical implications of abortion. Science leans on the side that an unborn fetus is a human life. Some of our existing laws even recognise this. So no, Pell basing his opinion on long-held moral frameworks is not unreasonable.
        
        IMO humanity as a whole will be better off once it dismisses religion
        
        You really are clueless. Religion has played a major role in developing our current moral and legal codes. Our presumption of innocence (ie, innocent until proven guilty) come from Blackstone's formulation which itself is heavily based off Judeo-Christian principles.
        
        The separation of church and state doctrine was not intended to disband religion. You need to read more
        
        You really seem to take for granted the fact that you grew up in a safe and just society without recognising the role religion has played in that. Without God, there is no objective morality, which means we could just as easily decide as a society that murder and slavery are OK. Religion is the only thing that holds morality together and shields it from social influence. Secular regimes have caused more damage than religious ones. Communism, a system that actively seeks to abolish religion, has killed well over 100 million people in the last century alone.
        
        Do you really think that it was a foundation of the Christian ideals that allowed us to move past our prejudices and recognise the Aboriginal peoples and their beliefs?
        
        So in one sentence you say all religion is bad and needs to die off, and now you're trying to suggest that recognising the Aboroginal religion is a good thing. Which is it?
        
        FYI, Christianity was the most proactive force in abolishing slavery worldwide.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 22/06/2022 - 12:52
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Without God, there is no objective morality, which means we could just as easily decide as a society that murder and slavery are OK. Religion is the only thing that holds morality together and shields it from social influence.
        
        Of course, religion influences moral standards, but given that religions differ and people of the same faith often disagree on moral matters you cannot justify a moral principle by saying that it is the case because religion said so.
        
        SlavOz on 22/06/2022 - 13:21
        
        @01001101 01000010: It's more of an appeal to God rather than religion. Society needs God as a benchmark to morality.
        
        We cannot be objectively moral without a defined set of ethical codes that surpass time, culture, language, age, etc. Religion is by far the closest thing we have to that, even though it's not perfect.
        
        In absence of it, all we have is subjective interpretations of what is right and wrong, which tend to change very often and quite drastically. Surely this doesn't need to be explained given the history of socially-accepted abuse and discrimination that once prevailed in this country.
        
        Besides, when you take away religion, it's quite easy to see that people will just replace it with something else. We see this today in political tribalism where people actually believe men can get pregnant just because some authority figure said so. Left to their own devices, people do not become free - they just search for the next thing to follow.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 22/06/2022 - 13:27
        
        @SlavOz: Nah, people do plenty of good things not motivated by religion. We see it with children who help others without reward, it shows that altruism forms before religious beliefs.
        
        SlavOz on 22/06/2022 - 17:08
        
        -1
        
        @01001101 01000010: People can do good without religion - whole societies cannot.
        
        The children who are displaying good behaviour are doing so because it's inherited from the culture they live in, which itself is heavily formed by religious ideals. Eg - children in Afghanistan or Congo are more than happy to pick up gun and shoot someone, whereas most children here would think that's wrong. When religion is rejected in pursuit of personal desires, morality cannot last more than a generation or so.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 22/06/2022 - 17:18
        
        @SlavOz: Nope. The study shows it was displayed in children as young as 14 months old https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Wiley-Blackwell/Warneken_Ro…
        
        children in Afghanistan or Congo are more than happy to pick up gun and shoot someone, whereas most children here would think that's wrong.
        
        I think you would be surprised at how many of them aren't picking up guns and killing people. I'll go out on a limb and say most.
        
        People can do good without religion - whole societies cannot.
        
        Hmm, societies are made of individuals and individuals change societies. So I guess we'll see.
        
        maxyzee on 23/06/2022 - 10:13
        
        +1
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Eg - children in Afghanistan or Congo are more than happy to pick up gun and shoot someone, whereas most children here would think that's wrong.
        
        !? WTF. If that ain’t elitism I don’t know what is. So what about other Asian countries notably Japan, India and SK. Do those countries have huge degenerate problems where everyone is stealing and murdering everyone? Or did you think the world is just Europe/Australia and America. The level of ignorance and the confidence and certainty with that ignorance is quite extraordinary.
        
        I have relatives and friends that a quite religious and are very active members of their respective churches and mosques. None of them have ever been this dim witted or arrogant about their views.
        
        This one is another Slavoz special in the stupidity metre. I don’t know how you live life, you must not talk to a lot people or converse in your own little bubble and then exude a self satisfied level of certainty that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I think you and AH are very similar in the way how certain you are about things and how wrong everyone else is.
        
        SlavOz on 23/06/2022 - 12:31
        
        @maxyzee:
        
        Japan, India and SK
        
        🤣 Are they supposed to be examples of shining morality without religion or something?
        
        Japan is culturally responsible for some of the worst genocides and atrocities in human history. India is very religious anyway, unfortunately seems like they've been dominated by the wrong one.
        
        None of them have ever been this dim witted or arrogant about their views.
        
        Arrogance is thinking that 90% of the world's population today and throughout history is wrong and you have the correct answer based on some new philosophy that you picked up over the last 10 years or so.
        
        There is literally nothing more arrogant than that. Religion has been around for thousands of years and continues to dominate most societies yet apparently all the philosophers, scholars, and intellectuals to date have nothing on the supreme enlightenment of maxyzee 🤣
        
        Sure buddy.
        
        SBOB on 23/06/2022 - 19:43
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Arrogance is thinking that 90% of the world's population today and throughout history is wrong and you have the correct answer based on some new philosophy that you picked up over the last 10 years or so.
        
        yet you're happy to be a science denier..
        it's arrogant to think you're 'new found' DYOR philosophy/'education' is correct when weighed up against the vast majority of science or medical research and literature.
        
        <Insert whatever science or medical topic you're currently ranting about>
        
        "There is literally nothing more arrogant than that."
        
        SlavOz on 23/06/2022 - 19:49
        
        -2
        
        @SBOB: When the COVID vaccine has thousands of years of social acceptance, ethical studies, and medical data behind it, then perhaps questioning it might be on the same level as questioning religion.
        
        Until then, it's not even close. Religion has widespread acceptance from countless schools of thought spanning endless time periods, cultures, languages, etc. The vax is backed by nothing more than 2 years of incorrect predictions, censorship, and failed experiments.
        
        maxyzee on 23/06/2022 - 21:22
        
        @SlavOz: TFG 🤷‍♂️
      - 01001101 01000010 on 17/06/2022 - 13:46
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Pell himself set up the Melbourne Response - which was a compensation scheme for victims of clergy abuse. Maybe he could've done more. Maybe the program could've been better.
        
        Absolutely there could have been. The Royal Commission called it out specifically for its failures and inadequate support to the victims.
        
        But this certainly doesn't excuse people lying about him or the media leading a witch hunt based on nothing but anti-church sentiment.
        
        I Agree wholeheartedly. However, I think there can two issues to address. One is poor reporting in the media the other is child sexual abuse. We don't have to choose which one we address as we have the ability and should address both.
        
        a position backed by the majority of biologists(papers.ssrn.com).
        
        I think this deserves some context as it is hardly the majority of biologists. The paper states:
        
        Altogether, 62,469 academic biologists were recruited through e-mail and 7,383 participated in the study (12% survey response rate).
        
        SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 14:44
        
        @01001101 01000010:
        
        The Royal Commission called it out specifically for its failures and inadequate support to the victims
        
        Important to note that the RC is not legally binding or indicative of evidence. It's really just an opinion.
        
        We don't have to choose which one we address as we have the ability and should address both.
        
        Spot on. The issue I'm pointing out is that Pell and the lack of effective church measures have already been addressed to a large degree. They were put on trial and subjected to the most extreme form of scrutiny. Even after that, they had to face the RC.
        
        Now where is the accountability for dishonest journalism or those that (very likely) lied under oath? There was not a single investigation into this. No reparations or apology for robbing an old man of a year of his life. Not even a response from Vic Police on why they originally sentenced and charged someone without a shred of evidence. Nothing at all. How can we be confident they won't make the same 'mistake' again?
        
        We certainly should address both yet it seems the government is only interested in addressing one while giving itself and their media buddies a free pass.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 17/06/2022 - 16:38
        
        -1
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Important to note that the RC is not legally binding or indicative of evidence. It's really just an opinion.
        
        What an uneducated comment. It is not just an opinion. It has specific terms of reference
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institut…
        
        It has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the terms of reference of the commission. These powers include subpoenaing witnesses, taking evidence under oath and requesting documents.
        The warrant may grant immense investigatory powers, including summoning witnesses under oath, offering of indemnities, seizing of documents and other evidence (sometimes including those normally protected, such as classified information), holding hearings in camera if necessary and—in a few cases—compelling all government officials to aid in the execution of the Commission.
        Morrison announced that the federal government had not rejected any recommendations of the royal commission, that it was working on 104 of the 122 recommendations that were addressed to the Commonwealth and had established:
        - a National Redress Scheme with the support of the states and territories administrations;
        - the National Office of Child Safety within the Department of Social Services; and
        - a National Centre of Excellence to raise awareness and understanding of the impacts of child sexual abuse, to deal with the stigma, to support help seeking and guide best practice for training and other services.
        
        The issue I'm pointing out is that Pell and the lack of effective church measures have already been addressed to a large degree.
        
        Are you implying that because they put in the Melbourne Response the church had answered for what it had done? What a great world you are wanting when the perpetrator can choose their own punishment..
        
        Not even a response from Vic Police on why they originally sentenced and charged someone without a shred of evidence.
        
        Come on, even a school child knows that the police don't sentence someone.
        
        SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 16:51
        
        -1
        
        @01001101 01000010:
        
        What an uneducated comment. It is not just an opinion
        
        It really is, and nothing in your descriptive quote says otherwise. The RC has legal power to conduct an investigation but the conclusions of that investigation is not legally binding nor can it be used as evidence.
        
        This is why the RC effectively found Pell guilty of covering up crimes yet he still hasn't been charged for it and never will.
        
        Are you implying that because they put in the Melbourne Response the church had answered for what it had done?
        
        No I'm saying that the church and Pell
        already had their day in court. They've been scrutinised to hell and back and dragged through countless investigations, yet not a single investigation was conducted into the corrupt and unethical behaviour of both the government agencies and the media during the trial.
        
        An innocent man was wrongly imprisoned without evidence, based heavily on lies spread by a taxpayer funded media network, yet not a single question was asked.
        
        Does that not absolutely terrify you? It should. We are all just one shoddy ABC segment away from becoming the next public enemy number 1.
        
        Come on, even a school child knows that the police don't sentence someone.
        
        Vic Police played a significant role in the Pell prosecution as they were the ones who initially led the investigations and arrested him. Yet it's now been found that they acted rather incompetently and did not follow the due process.
        
        Like I said, this is all much dangerous for our justice system than what the church purportedly done.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 17/06/2022 - 17:42
        
        -1
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Like I said, this is all much dangerous for our justice system than what the church purportedly done.
        
        Still running distraction for pedophiles I see. Same ol same with you.
        
        SlavOz on 17/06/2022 - 20:37
        
        @01001101 01000010: Which paedophile?

Amber Heard V Johnny Depp

Poll Options

Comments

metoo era is now dead

New Forum Topics