[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"cloak themselves in women's rights" because no one could actually care about rapists being sent to prison with women, no no no, it's obvious they just hate trans people and probably black people and gay people too......... makes sense

We've gone so far the other way...that common sense has well and truly left the building. Today on Jeremy Vine ,they were still calling this rapist a "she" .

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

We've gone so far the other way...that common sense has well and truly left the building. Today on Jeremy Vine ,they were still calling this rapist a "she" .

Do women stop being women if they commit crimes?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Do women stop being women if they commit crimes?

Of course women are still women ...which has nothing to do with this , why are you even comparing?.

We all know predators are exploiting this loophole , and if someone has been assaulted by a man....who still has male body parts ,why should we believe him ,when he conveniently becomes a woman after he's been convicted / arrested.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Speaking to Lewis Goodall of Global’s News Agents podcast, Sturgeon said:

‘There are people who have opposed this bill that cloak themselves in women’s rights to make it acceptable. But just as they’re transphobic you’ll also find they are deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.’

What worries me THE MOST about this statement is that those are not her words from her own deduction - I've heard those words before, we all have, we hear them constantly. These are prescribed, copy-paste, groupthinky words. I 100% genuinely respect well thought out differences of opinions and opposing viewpoints but this generic stuff, I just can't stand it at the best of times, and when it's coming out of the mouthes of people in power it's even worse.

[Beso]

This story reminds me off my 2 paedophiles faking being gay so they can adopt worries.

[Alf]

Do you think those man hating feminists are just as dangerous with their opinions as you believe Tate is?

[user104658]

I'm not getting into this on here Alf, you clearly don't know half of what Andrew Tate peddles or what he's done (or you believe the conspiracy nonsense that he's being framed) and the question above - "isn't man-hating just as bad as violent men threatening women" - is just too deep into Redpill rhetoric for me to even bother addressing. For what it's worth I hope you escape the clutches of this chronically online propaganda eventually because it genuinely makes me sad to think that you might be lonely forever.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm not getting into this on here Alf, you clearly don't know half of what Andrew Tate peddles or what he's done (or you believe the conspiracy nonsense that he's being framed) and the question above - "isn't man-hating just as bad as violent men threatening women" - is just too deep into Redpill rhetoric for me to even bother addressing. For what it's worth I hope you escape the clutches of this chronically online propaganda eventually because it genuinely makes me sad to think that you might be lonely forever.

Well so far they haven't charged him with anything or provided any evidence against him yet have him locked up.

If he's done something criminal then charge him and produce the evidence. It isn't much to ask when you're locking someone up.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Well so far they haven't charged him with anything or provided any evidence against him yet have him locked up.

If he's done something criminal then charge him and produce the evidence. It isn't much to ask when you're locking someone up.

He's been locked up on charges relating to activities related to organised crime, sex trafficking and rape. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where did you hear that he hasn't been charged? That's what I mean Alf, you really need to question these sources.

Do you mean why is he locked up if he hasn't yet been convicted of the charges? If so that's because he's a flight risk and would (almost definitely) attempt to leave the country so he's been denied bail.

But yeah, those are the charges. To say these are no charges is just nonsense but it's what I see from Redpillers and Tate fans all the time, which makes me think you're listening to some very dodgy people.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm not getting into this on here Alf, you clearly don't know half of what Andrew Tate peddles or what he's done (or you believe the conspiracy nonsense that he's being framed) and the question above - "isn't man-hating just as bad as violent men threatening women" - is just too deep into Redpill rhetoric for me to even bother addressing. For what it's worth I hope you escape the clutches of this chronically online propaganda eventually because it genuinely makes me sad to think that you might be lonely forever.

I honestly don't know why anyone would still make excuses or downplay Tate's actions. He's a sleaze bag through and through.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I honestly don't know why anyone would still make excuses or downplay Tate's actions. He's a sleaze bag through and through.

What were his actions? If people knew them then maybe they wouldn't down play them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

What were his actions? If people knew them then maybe they wouldn't down play them.

"Lover boy" exploitation and sex trafficking, fraud, theft by deception... All of which he openly admitted to on his own websites - probably not realising it was illegal.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

"Lover boy" exploitation and sex trafficking, fraud, theft by deception... All of which he openly admitted to on his own websites - probably not realising it was illegal.

More like not giving a damn if it was illegal...I would say.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I honestly don't know why anyone would still make excuses or downplay Tate's actions. He's a sleaze bag through and through.

I don’t know much , if anything, about him ( I only see disparaging comments though ) Sadly many , many teenage lads idolise him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AnnieK]

I have a pre-teen son and I regularly go through his internet history - but we do it together and discuss what he's been watching. He is hitting puberty like a train and as all kids his age is glued to his phone. He is still (thankfully) very open with me and more into gaming than girls at the minute but we have had a lot of communication from school regarding questionable sites that some of the kids have been accessing....

They have access to so much that it is very easy for them to slip down some pretty dodgy wormholes.

Prior research and open and honest dialogue with kids is required to make sure they are not flooded with toxic content.

[bots]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I have a pre-teen son and I regularly go through his internet history - but we do it together and discuss what he's been watching. He is hitting puberty like a train and as all kids his age is glued to his phone. He is still (thankfully) very open with me and more into gaming than girls at the minute but we have had a lot of communication from school regarding questionable sites that some of the kids have been accessing....

They have access to so much that it is very easy for them to slip down some pretty dodgy wormholes.

Prior research and open and honest dialogue with kids is required to make sure they are not flooded with toxic content.

Spot on

[Crimson Dynamo]

I have had the whole Tate discussion with smallest boy LT also

but luckily he has 2 older sisters who also have told him

[Alf]

Did you have the Jo Brand discussion with your kids?

Are some parents having the Sam Smith discussion right now?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Did you have the Jo Brand discussion with your kids?

Are some parents having the Sam Smith discussion right now?

If by Jo Brand you mean "be careful what you say in the Internet" (refer g to her stupid comment about acid attacks) then yes, all the time.

If by "The Sam Smith discussion" you means issues relating to gender and/or porn culture then... Yes, all the time.

[bots]

The only way to counteract the mess that is the internet is education and who better than parents educating their children on these topics

[Alf]

Do I lie or do I just not sentence a person before all the evidence and facts are given?

[bots]

why dont you post this in the tate thread rather than this one

[bots]

she is pushing responsibility on to the prison service and then tying herself in knots trying to answer questions. Surely Scottish people will say enough is enough

[Niamh.]

And here is a Trans Activist responding to the interview basically saying that yes male rapists should be housed with women and Nicola Sturgeon is transphobic.

Spoiler:

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

And here is a Trans Activist responding to the interview basically saying that yes male rapists should be housed with women and Nicola Sturgeon is transphobic.

Spoiler:

They're not wrong to be fair, Nicola is trying to have her cake and eat it too... which is why she's stumbling around all over the place. The truth of course is that she knows what the sensible answer is but - like many people - is afraid of being branded transphobic (politically) and more importantly afraid of "aligning with Tories". She's spitting the Kool-Aid at people but I'm very, very doubtful that she's actually swallowed any herself. I don't see "real" ideology in her - just a political position she's decided to take.

She may well of course believe that trans rights are important too - as many of us do - but she recognises the objective reality that there is a fundamental difference between a woman and a trans woman.