BBC News - Luis Rubiales: Spanish FA will take legal action over Jennifer Hermoso 'lies'
The Spanish football federation says it will take legal action over Jenni Hermoso's comments about its president Luis Rubiales.
You're viewing a single thread.
People are so quick with conclusions without actual information.
If you read the article, it is about whether the person gave consent or not for the kiss.
We as just observers on the internet, have no idea about that. So why drawing conclusions?
EDIT you can downvote all you want, since it doesn’t mean anything on here. However let me ask:
Were you next to both of them when it happened? I’m assuming not, so how do you know the facts? Conclusions without facts are just random opinions.
There's a significant difference between claiming some things was spontaneous and actually getting consent. This guy wasn't in a relationship with the player where this type of behavior would have been previously cleared. He's not even claiming that he asked permission. In this case you would have to assume mutual spontaneous consent. That is what he's claiming. However, one party has clearly said it wasn't mutual consent. So now you either have to assume the victim is lying or you take the logical path and realize that there's photographic evidence of a powerful figure, who doesn't claim to have asked for consent, assaulting a female athlete and showing no regard or remorse for that behavior.
He’s not even claiming that he asked permission.
I read that he asked her and she said it was okay. Of course, this is his account of things, but it really is just his word vs. hers on this matter.
Unless someone has a microphone that could've picked up the exchange.
First of all thanks for an actual argument without throwing insults and such.
You are right indeed, about actual consent, spontaneousness/ spontaneous consent. One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?
I mean, certainly if it was not, he should resign and such. I would like to say though, I never said that there was no photographic evidence. This matter is an she versus he said.
One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?
You are a clown.
You are a child.
Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.
Thanks, I suppose.
No man. Use your fucking brain. This is either one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen or you are truly an idiot.
You're saying the equivalent of "How do we know person A punched person B, and it wasn't person B who slammed his face into person A's fist? shrug We as internet observers just can't know."
It's disgustingly dishonest. Everyone is trying to tell you this and you keep retreating further. Step out of your shoes or whatever personal reason is causing you to have this cognitive dissonance and look the situation honestly. You should see that your posts defending this have been pathetic and dishonest.
Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can't focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.
What on earth are you talked about? I literally attacked his argument, not him.
You, on the other hand, offered nothing but tone trolling.
If he never tried to get consent, there was no consent, implied or otherwise.
Dude, Hermoso herself said it was non consensual. How can you justify suing HER since it happened to HER. Do you know what she was thinking?
He said it was.
She said it wasn't.
Who do we believe, and based on what?
The victim, bases on the obvious fucking evidence
Like what? Please enlighten me with specifics.
My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.
Certainly he can he an ''POS'' but I don't know. I don't know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.
You can see that he kissed her on the lips and she said she didn’t want or consent to that. What more evidence do you need? Do you think she is lying?
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.
So you don’t want any more evidence. So you either believe her or you think she’s a liar. Which is it?
I gave you my answer to that already.
Yes, you believe the abuser caught in video but you’re too much of a coward to admit it outright.
Another one making it personal. Seem certain people cannot have a decent argument without becoming personal.
If your argument has no basis in fact, it must come from your personal values.
If that’s what you believe, that’s alright. I won’t comment to you any further.
No. You didn’t. You said “I’m not saying she’s lying”. That’s not the same.
Do you believe her statements or do you think she’s lying?
Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.
Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?
I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.
My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.
So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.
I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.
When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I'm disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
This is absolutely true when dealing with tribalists. You're either with them or against them; there is no in-between.
Just look at everyone getting mad at you for even suggesting we don't know all the facts. Sad, but that's what this generation has become. Rabid fools desperate to fit in with other rabid fools.
If they’re mad about an opinion over the internet, well that’s on them. Nowadays it’s pretty much follow the hype train and pretending to know everything.
They can downvote me to oblivion, that’s fine. It’s internet point which does not mean anything at all and especially here on Lemmy. I can still do everything. So it matters even less.
Majority doesn’t even have a good argument point, if I remember well, there were only one or two people who had. The rest didn’t and went direct into personal matters, which isn’t a good thing for an argument.
I quite much forgot about this thread/ argument until, I saw your comment.
You're taking empiricism to absurd lengths. Why?
It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you're being a little pedantic here.
Are you replying to someone else? I can't tell what you're trying to say.
Are you autistic?
No.
You OK there?
Just that the "arguments" and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.
I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?
The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy's doing the same so maybe it's just typical conversation on here.
A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.
I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.
Christ. How sad do you have to be to go to bat for this pos.
Well the fact that no one gave an counterargument, proves my point.
This is pretty much “follow the hate train”. As usual.
I don’t particular like the guy but people here pretend as if they have been there and heard everything. Which is kind of funny(?)
The counterargument is that she said it wasn't consensual. Holy shit, how many people in your life should think about pressing charges against you if that's how you think consent works?
Since you are making this personal, I won't argue with you. However if you are curious, you can check my other comments to the ones that are actually giving arguments without being personal.
The player herself has stated that she did not consent
We as just observers on the internet
George Orwell:
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
There is something to be said about missing perspectives from outsiders and even the ease of digital modifications of images, in a completely different situation that this mushbrained loser is trying to apply to this one for some reason.
Right, just fill in what you don't know with what you'd like to believe.
Possibly the most frustrating kind of troll
Impartiality isn't good on platforms like these.
It's all a rabid chase for upvotes by having the 'popular' opinion, regardless of if it's right.
I think she said she didn't. So that's clear.
It's surprising he hasn't apologised. But it shows how strong the culture of misogyny is in that organization that he feels he can brazen it out.
I mean, it wouldn't make sense for him to apologize if he isn't lying about her saying yes.
I'm not saying he's right, but I don't have audio of what happened so I just have to pick who I want to believe or admit I don't know.
There seems to have been a bad culture of sexism in Spanish football with many women refusing to play.
I see no reason to disbelieve her. Why should she agree to be kissed by her boss.
Someone that high profile is paid a lot of money to provide good leadership.
He obviously felt that he had the power to behave that way. Which is exactly the problem.
That's a good take.