|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| That's not true at all. The two of you have done nothing but hound me for pages and pages. Most people have been reasonable, and I've been reasonable with them. But I don't have to put up with your abusive behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The only abusive one has been you. We keep "hounding you" because you are intellectually dishonest. You never answer our questions, you evade them actually, and you are abusive and rude in return, calling people names instead of engaging in a civil debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, following someone around to different boards with the same question about Homolka is harrassment. I offered my views on Homolka pages ago and you should have just let it rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I expressed no opinion about whether Bardot is a racist because I have only secondhand information about her. I disagree with her politics, but that doesn't invalidate whatever good work she may be doing for animals (and it looks like she is doing some). |
Actually, she is doing terrible things for the cause of animal rights and animal welfare by merely associating her name with them, to say nothing of the disgraceful tactics she has employed with regard to Korea.
| Quote: |
| It also doesn't change the fact that only a walking piece of *beep* would try to smear all animal rights/welfare people through guilt by association with Bardot, her husband, or with some racist group that I personally don't belong to and guess what? I don't know anyone who does. |
I have only said that her views, while being racist, carry an ethnocentric bias toward European culture that is, yes, silly and makes all Westerners look equally silly in the eyes of people from this part of the world. I have also said that I have seen plenty of websites from more than one or two animal rights groups that express views that are similar - I have not said that all are racist though I have made the point that many express views that are culturally chauvanist.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, you blatantly misrepresented the extent of Bardot's involvement in Korea, the nature of the work of the various different animal advocacy groups in Korea, and my intentions when I chose to address these issues in three different threads (now four, I guess). |
Wrong. It was you who said she only gave a radio interview over the phone. I provided links that showed she did much more, such as persuading FIFA to try to compel legislation in Korea and even mailing photographs of butchered dogs to soccer players prior to World Cup.
| Quote: |
| You are the one who has set the tone for all our interactions from this point foward. It's not going to get any more pleasant than this. |
I never expected anything less from you.
| Quote: |
| Hey, it's obvious you don't think you have anything to learn from me and I assure you that the feeling is very mutual. So ... why exactly are we still talking to each other? I can't figure it out, can you? |
I've had some free time on my hands lately, so I used it to say some things most of us are thinking. My skin is thick enough, I think - I've been arguing about important political issues in the CE Forum for a while now and, frankly, there isn't much you can do to me that others have not already tried ...
| Quote: |
| He accused me of being a racist and refused to retract the accusation. I'm not a racist and neither are the vast majority of people who care about animals. And I want you to know he's wrong. |
One more time, I never said that about you, though you've said that and worse about me - I said that Brigitte Bardot is a racist and I showed a link from the BBC that told a monetary amount she had to pay the French govt for inciting bigotry.
One more time, why is it "pretentious" for someone to say they are committed to the feminist cause?
(Oh, and desultude and DW : your check is in the mail ... hey, just kidding!  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I explained why it sounded pretentious to my ears and I really don't care all that much what causes you are devoted to. But the more detailed article you posted didn't seem to support the first one's stale regurgitations about "victim feminism."
As I said before, I don't think McGillivray is dishonest; I misunderstood her point initially but when I looked at the article more carefully I could see what she was getting at. However, the connection between the case and "victim feminism" appears pretty tenuous -- McGillivray doesn't seem to be taking the oversimplistic approach that the Xtra writer did. The Xtra article was inaccurate, unoriginal and basically a rant, IMO. There's a grain of truth in what you (and the writer) say about "victim feminism," but so what? It's nothing new and really has limited relevance here.
Bardot may well have done a disservice to the animal welfare and conservation movements (she appears to be working mainly in those areas rather than animal rights). But we both know that's not why you brought her into the discussion and harped on the matter endlessly.
Lots of people wrote to FIFA expressing concern about animal welfare in Korea. It was the Kum sisters who conducted the investigations, took the photographs, rescued and sheltered any animals they could, and made international activists aware of the issue.
And the Kum sisters were in contact with activists and organizations all over the world during the preparations for the World Cup. They asked everyone to boycott the World Cup, and I believe they wanted people to write to FIFA as well. I have no idea whether they spoke to Bardot personally but she could easily have decided to take the action she did after looking at their Web site or receiving requests from people who had. At any rate, she has not had a significant presence in Korea and I doubt she's ever set foot here. You are guilty of twisting the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I explained why it sounded pretentious to my ears |
No, you didn't.
| Quote: |
| and I really don't care all that much what causes you are devoted to. |
Then why make an issue over it? Why should anyone care that you think men who profess commitment are being "pretentious?" It was just a chance for a gratuitous insult. You're good at that.
| Quote: |
| But the more detailed article you posted didn't seem to support the first one's stale regurgitations about "victim feminism." |
They were not intended to support one another. The first was to show that a lot of mainstream media was jumping on the "Karla is a victim" bandwagon, and that some not-so-mainstream media sources were objecting to that. Prof MacGiullray stopped by to say a few words about how "victim feminism' and gender had an impact on the trial.
| Quote: |
| As I said before, I don't think McGillivray is dishonest; I misunderstood her point initially but when I looked at the article more carefully I could see what she was getting at. However, the connection between the case and "victim feminism" appears pretty tenuous -- McGillivray doesn't seem to be taking the oversimplistic approach that the Xtra writer did. The Xtra article was inaccurate, unoriginal and basically a rant, IMO. There's a grain of truth in what you (and the writer) say about "victim feminism," but so what? It's nothing new and really has limited relevance here. |
It has relevance to the points I have already made about it. Simply saying something irrelevant is not the same as showing it, and you are not very interested in showing anything, from what I have observed.
| Quote: |
Bardot may well have done a disservice to the animal welfare and conservation movements (she appears to be working mainly in those areas rather than animal rights). But we both know that's not why you brought her into the discussion and harped on the matter endlessly.
Lots of people wrote to FIFA expressing concern about animal welfare in Korea. It was the Kum sisters who conducted the investigations, took the photographs, rescued and sheltered any animals they could, and made international activists aware of the issue.
And the Kum sisters were in contact with activists and organizations all over the world during the preparations for the World Cup. They asked everyone to boycott the World Cup, and I believe they wanted people to write to FIFA as well. I have no idea whether they spoke to Bardot personally but she could easily have decided to take the action she did after looking at their Web site or receiving requests from people who had. At any rate, she has not had a significant presence in Korea and I doubt she's ever set foot here. You are guilty of twisting the facts. |
I suggest you clipboard this and insert it in the thread about Dog Soup where it belongs. Bardot was mentioned here only as an example of the limits of red dog's ignorance - you did not know about her racism until I showed you and you continued to defend her even after that. Someone who cares as deeply about this as you seem to really ought to know about Bardot's background, and you need to find someone else to support or defend.
These three paragraphs include
a) an attack on myself by means of innuendo. (Exactly why did I bring her up originally? Was I really the first person to have mentioned her?)
b) minizing Bardot's impact on Korea around the time of World Cup. (Were you here in Korea at that time? I was.)
c) implication with no shred of evidence that Bardot stole ideas or arguments from the Kum sisters. ("Could easily have"? This is your argument?)
and finally
d) a willfully ignorant statement about Bardot's impact on Korea that flies in the face of a ridiculous amount of documentary evidence I heve shown you - coupled with a blatant lie about The Bobster twisting facts. (Which fact have I twisted and how did you show it?
Clue : you didn't show it, because it didn't happen.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear why it is poretentious for The bobster to be committed to the feminist cause - is it only pretentious when The Bobster says it or when anyone says it? Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The phrase "the feminist cause" sounds pretentious, as if there's exactly one right one and only you know which it is. And considering the disgusting way you have conducted yourself, it's not anywhere near as bad as what you deserve to be called.
The media did not support Homolka! She portrayed herself as a victim and so did her lawyer and much later, the Crown. The media ran the quotes and the photos, but the commentary was not sympathetic AT ALL. I don't think anything in the McGillivray article supports your statements about "victim feminism." She shows how feminist ideas influenced the "psy disciplines" that allowed her to be portrayed that way in court. You suggested there was a big outpouring of support for her among feminists. Quite a leap.
I have very little interest in Bardot. I knew she was convicted in connection with some statements she made a few years ago about Muslim immigrants and possibly ritual slaughter, and I knew she held political views I didn't and don't share, long before you ever brought her up. But I didn't look into the case because I had no reason to. I still don't. From a quick glance at her Web site, it sounds like she's involved in some legitimate work for animals. It doesn't mean I share her political views and it doesn't mean you can use them to smear me or anyone else.
You are completely wrong about the Korean animal protection movement. Bardot's relatively insignificant actions in 2002 got a lot of media attention, but there are Korean groups -- including but not limited to KAPS -- that have been involved in these issues in a much more substantial way. I don't really care if you acknowledge the truth at this point because our conversation is over. I wish I could say it's been nice, but it really hasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| The phrase "the feminist cause" sounds pretentious, as if there's exactly one right one and only you know which it is. |
Is it pretentious whenever ANYone says it or only The Bobster?
Misrepresentation, anyway, and also a display of ignorance about the meaning of the word, and after I've gone and found the dictionary for it it can only mean a willful desire for ignorance rather than reality ... one more time cause : An ideal, principle, aim, etc, that people support and work for.
This is about goals rather than tactics, and The Bobster was quite clear about the source of tension being with a particular tactic, viz, the promotion of legislation to make it legal for a woman to kill her husband in his sleep. I have to wonder how much you actually know about feminism yourself, bbalkgan kae ... do you think thatkind of legislation is worthy of anyone's support? Can you imagine that some young men would be turned off to the entire notion of feminism from seeing some groups support such law?
There was nothing "pretentious" about what I said there. You are all about insulting people who don't agree with you. Try something else.
| Quote: |
| And considering the disgusting way you have conducted yourself, it's not anywhere near as bad as what you deserve to be called. |
You've never held back before ... still, the way I was conducting myself at the moment was to try to get people to stop fighting. That is what is true here.
| Quote: |
| The media did not support Homolka! |
Exclamations marks are sure to prove your point - sure is easier than trying to find evidence, I guess ...
| Quote: |
| She portrayed herself as a victim and so did her lawyer and much later, the Crown. The media ran the quotes and the photos, but the commentary was not sympathetic AT ALL. |
If you say so, it must be true - but why not show it? I did go outside of my own head to find other source for what I was saying. (Maybe you CAN'T support what you say - when did you ever even try>)
| Quote: |
| I don't think anything in the McGillivray article supports your statements about "victim feminism." She shows how feminist ideas influenced the "psy disciplines" that allowed her to be portrayed that way in court. |
My opinions about "victim feminism" are not the reason I brought Ms McGillivrayaround to speak to us. I already explained it was to illuistrate the effect of gender issues on the trial.
| Quote: |
| You suggested there was a big outpouring of support for her among feminists. Quite a leap. |
Did I really now? A "big outpouring" - did I say that? Here, lemme go look ...
The Bobster : "there may have been some feminists who saw her as a cause worth fighting for"
Tell me now, how do the words "may" and "some' translate into "a big outpouring? Happy to see you are not tired of telling lies about people - this place gets so boring when people confine themselves to reasoned and rational debate.
| Quote: |
| I have very little interest in Bardot. I knew she was convicted in connection with some statements she made a few years ago about Muslim immigrants and possibly ritual slaughter, and I knew she held political views I didn't and don't share, long before you ever brought her up. But I didn't look into the case because I had no reason to. I still don't. From a quick glance at her Web site, it sounds like she's involved in some legitimate work for animals. It doesn't mean I share her political views and it doesn't mean you can use them to smear me or anyone else. |
I haven't said anything about Bardot that isn't true, and nothing that I haven't backed up with evidence. Again, I'll suggest that you're better off going back to the Dog Soup thread if you want to defend her.
The stuff about ritual slaughter remains on her website even at this moment, by the way. It wasn't a few of years ago, it was June of 2004, yeah right about six months ago, and they weren't verbal statements but rather due to her book, Cry in the Silence. You would know this if you had read the BBC I posted for you quite some time ago, but here's another one from MSNBC that says the same thing - and once more, the ONLY reason she is relevant here at this moment is to illustrate how little you know about things you really DO need to know if you are going to speak coherently on such matters ... and this is why I felt I had to explain to you what the pink triangle means, dear.
| Quote: |
| You are completely wrong about the Korean animal protection movement. Bardot's relatively insignificant actions in 2002 got a lot of media attention, but there are Korean groups -- including but not limited to KAPS -- that have been involved in these issues in a much more substantial way. I don't really care if you acknowledge the truth at this point because our conversation is over. I wish I could say it's been nice, but it really hasn't. |
Once more, this is on the wrong thread, but then, you haven't said anything new here - you haven't said anything in fact.
If I am wrong about something you really ought to say what is wrong and why it is wrong. Bardot had a hand in trying to create legislation in a country that is not her own, and that is not insignificant. KAPS is doing good work but they are accepting - begging - for money from foreigners, as well as promulgating a lot of anit-Korean rhetoric on their site, which would tend to indicate that their work is not about Korea but rather following an agenda inspired by foreigners.
I said all this before, on the thread where it belongs. You didn't address these things at the time and you are not addressing them now - if you decide to, I suggest using that original thread to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Once again, you are a condescending, offensive, disgusting person. This will be my last post to you, on this thread or any other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yikes, talk about sore loser |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Once again, you are a condescending, offensive, disgusting person. This will be my last post to you, on this thread or any other. |
Phew!
The poor dead horse can now go unflogged. (Not you, Bobster! The subject!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
The phrase "the feminist cause" sounds pretentious, as if there's exactly one right one and only you know which it is. And considering the disgusting way you have conducted yourself, it's not anywhere near as bad as what you deserve to be called.
The media did not support Homolka! She portrayed herself as a victim and so did her lawyer and much later, the Crown. The media ran the quotes and the photos, but the commentary was not sympathetic AT ALL. I don't think anything in the McGillivray article supports your statements about "victim feminism." She shows how feminist ideas influenced the "psy disciplines" that allowed her to be portrayed that way in court. You suggested there was a big outpouring of support for her among feminists. Quite a leap.
|
Some in the media found the 'victim' angle had legs and would sell stories, so they played with it a bit; I wouldn't say they're blameless.
But it was mostly the result of the police and the Crown completely screwing up the case and prosecution. They thought they had to have her testimony, and to get it and make her look remotely credible they had make her into a victim, and paid off a bunch of psycologists to help. If the Crown had just tried to hammer them both for whatever they could, they could have got both the max for manslaughter and rape, and then had them declared dangerous offenders and locked away for life. Instead, they were so desperate to get a first-degree murder conviction for Paul that they bought off Karla. They were able to do this because enough people would accept, or want to believe, the female-victim thesis. Feminist myths do have something to do with why the trial went the way it did, though it would not have been possible without a lot of plain old Police incompetence in the investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Once again, you are a condescending, offensive, disgusting person. This will be my last post to you, on this thread or any other. |
Talk about rude, offensive and down right sore-losery. I think you owe Bobster a big apology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point, TBS, and I agree with the following statement to a certain extent:
| Quote: |
| They were able to do this because enough people would accept, or want to believe, the female-victim thesis. Feminist myths do have something to do with why the trial went the way it did ... |
But the "myths" you're referring to didn't just pop up out of nowhere. A lot of women end up in abusive relationships and some of them commit crimes because they're afraid of their husbands and boyfriends. It doesn't excuse what she did, but the essence of her story still seems more credible than her husband's because the reverse situation is far less common. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daechidong Waygookin
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: No Longer on Dave's. Ive quit.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
I see your point, TBS, and I agree with the following statement to a certain extent:
| Quote: |
| They were able to do this because enough people would accept, or want to believe, the female-victim thesis. Feminist myths do have something to do with why the trial went the way it did ... |
But the "myths" you're referring to didn't just pop up out of nowhere. A lot of women end up in abusive relationships and some of them commit crimes because they're afraid of their husbands and boyfriends. It doesn't excuse what she did, but the essence of her story still seems more credible than her husband's because the reverse situation is far less common. |
Thats why you fail to condemn her? Sorry, even if she got beat on a daily basis, she is no less guilty than Bernardo. I hope she did get beat on a daily basis, at least that was justice that the State failed to deliver. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
