Posts by Miwojedk

  • Johnny Depp Wins

    Quote

    ↩  enchy who the fuck copes by posing for pictures and copying lines from a movie that has a domestic violence victim. and outward behavior can help make inferences about people. psychologists analyze people based on how they act and what body language they present.

    you aren't the arbiter of what's a correct coping mechanism and what isn't. A clinical psychologist during trial stated that she showed signs of PTSD and another claimed she had BPD, so if you're going to claim you're more knowledgeable than a professional with 10+ years of experience, then be my guest.

    Quote

    why are you trying so hard to not admit depp might not be an abuser? depp has no history or pattern of violence, while amber does. there is also no evidence depp was physically abusive, while there is evidence heard was. anything past that is not following evidence and instead making shit up. you cant seem to admit that depp isnt an abuser. do you think that the only way heard was violent was abusive was if she was provoked?

    I never said Depp was an abuser. I said both were toxic assholes. There is no way to know whether or not Depp or Amber were more or less abusive than what was shown in the trial because domestic abuse cases are a private matter. That's the focal point of my argument: I can physically (and psychologically) harm you, and if there is no photographic evidence or witnesses, then that instance of abuse becomes a "he said, she said"-matter.

    Quote

    it doesnt prove anything, but like i said the case would fit that statistic. im not turning a statistic into an anecdote, im showing how an anecdote fits into a broader statistic. i think i worded it a bit weird so thats my fault. also while yes, abusers typically come from abusive homes, that doesnt mean all people that come out of abusive homes are abusers.

    Then your comment is completely irrelevant

    Quote

    for some reason you just assume that depp is also a terrible person for no reason. is it because hes a celebrity? is it because you think domestic violence has to be done or provoked by men, whatever it is, its not following the evidence shown in court.

    Your comment here indicates to me that you have no intentions of having a productive conversation with me on the matter if you're just going to shove everything I said aside and say I have "no reason" for my views. I believe I have outlined clearly why Depp may/may not also be to blame for what is clearly a dysfunctional relationship and their altercations, where I also have made clear that I think your view on the matter oversimplifies the complexities of domestic abuse. A court ruling does not vindicate you of any wrongdoing - it just shows that there is no clear evidence against you.

  • Johnny Depp Wins

    ↩  enchy

    Quote

    thats literally not debatable

    Because you disagree does not mean something is not debatable.


    I have not followed the case closely because I find it ridiculous to do so. However I do know that abuse does not inherently equal physical markings. Whether or not you agree with Heard's lawyers' evidence is up to you, but a libel case can only be based on physical evidence.

    Quote

    amber heard’s own team submitted a photo that shows a bruise kit on the table which is used for making fake bruises. broken bed literally had a pocket knife laying on it in the picture.

    Which is not a "bruise kit" - https://www.newsweek.com/fact-…johnny-depp-trial-1709058
    This is just one of the many examples of sensationalism purported on social media.

    Quote

    psychologically it also makes sense that depp would not have abused heard. theres clearly in imbalance in the way the two if them act in court. you can see amber staring at depp, trying to get eye contact to be assertive. amber also clearly has rehearsed lines, facial expressions, and she even stole a line from a movie. i mean she was even posing for a photo. for depp on the other hand, he stays calm and refuses to let heard be assertive by making eye contact.

    I find it ridiculous to claim that because Heard acted in a manner you didn't find sincere she hasn't been abused. People cope differently. Apparently you can infer what goes on in the confines of their private life just by looking at their outward behaviour?

    Quote

    all of depps past partners and friends also say that depp has no history of violence, while amber heard definitely does have a history of violence.

    No "history of violence" does not mean you are not abusive. Domestic abuse is just that - domestic. And I can assure you that many perpetrators are walking out in public as if nothing is going on in their personal life.

    Quote

    even past their own actions in court, 70% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed by women so it would make sense in that context too that heard initiates violence but depp does not respond with violence.

    This proves nothing. You are trying to turn a statistic in to an anecdote. This is akin to saying that you're a male, and since statistics show you're more likely to commit rape, you must therefore be a rapist. Stats also show that abusers typically come from abusive homes - Depp was mistreated by his mother.


    I find it disgusting and abhorrent to make this shitshow a case of "belief", which is exactly what you and others do. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe Depp or Heard's or is somewhere inbetween. Abuse is abuse, and there is no way you're going to know the full scale of their private matter.

  • Let's talk about guns

    ↩ @'frontinside'


    Where did you source your figure from?


    Some interesting snippets from your source:
    "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."


    "Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."


    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

    Quote

    Although there may be many firearm-related deaths yearly – albeit a small amount – this is compensated by the number of lives saved by guns being accessible.

    How do you quantify the amount of lives saved? Your sources don't give an estimate of this number, they instead tell how many times guns may have been used in self defence. Self defence doesn't =/= life saved, considering self defence also includes cases of theft, robbery and more.


    I think your claim here is misleading and inappropriate for the discussion.

    Quote

    Estimates project that only 20% of gun-caused violence is from legal guns, showing that the gun laws within the United States are effective enough to prevent shootings. (Source: https://www.heritage.org/crime…acts-gun-violence-america)

    Your source here also states:
    "5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.

    • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws."

    Do you then think the US should put more restrictions on gun ownership, like they have in Israel and Switzerland?


    I haven't had the time to read the entirety of the sources listed in the article. If I get the time I'll respond back.

    Quote

    School shootings in the United States

    What's your point here?


    Here's a response from Harvard researchers on some of the numbers you listed:


    "1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense


    We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.


    4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal


    We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.


    5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense


    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.


    6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime


    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.


    8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime


    Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.


    We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”


    9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens


    Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.


    11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions


    Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."


    Source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/h…d-self-defense-gun-use-2/


    A figure from on gun deaths per capita in developed countries.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/grap…iolence-world-comparison/

  • Contraversial opinions

    Quote

    ↩ @'frontinside' Is this not discriminatory towards men? Anti-abortion advocates such as myself are against abortion because we believe that abortion is murder. Whether or not men can get pregnant is irrelevant. This logic is silly, it’s the equivalent of letting the Holocaust continue because you’re not a follower of Judaism because it doesn’t affect you. Nobody should have the right to vote on matters of human mortality or to democratically pass legislation that sets the standard for what is or is not a mortal being.

    When does a human achieve personhood?

    Quote

    If it was unintentional or unplanned, it’s her fault. Responsibility should be taken and a fetus shouldn’t be murdered just because the mother accidentally had them. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy during consensual sexual intercourse - if the woman can’t take proper action to prevent one, she shouldn’t murder the baby.

    Do you want to ban abortion even in cases of rape, since you find it morally reprehensible?

    Quote

    Kyle Rittenhouse killed a serial drug addict and child fiddler, someone who strangled his brother and injured a burglar who committed domestic violence.

    Why do the victims' backgrounds matter in the slightest? Are they more deserving of death?

  • Let's talk about guns

    ↩  RedEastWood

    Quote

    miwo will cite the Plymouth shooting and attempt to say that is somehow normal or anywhere near the level of shootings America experiences.

    No. I just found it absurd to blatantly state that there are no issues with shootings in any country.

  • Johnny Depp Wins

    ↩  LightUK You have no way of knowing if Depp is a domestic abuser or not. From what the trial showed it seems as though both have some issues, which is why I find it strange to broadcast.


    Why should him being "richer than me" affect my stance on the trial? Stop licking his nutsack.

  • think

    ↩  enchy By this logic anything can be considered "objective". If we agree that a book is good because of x reasons, then by your logic it would be "objectively good" even though our definition itself is subjective.

  • ‘Impossible’ maths question on GCSE exam

    ↩  LightUK


    Math is problem solving and critical thinking skills 101. There's a reason why there's such strong links between math and philosophy: logic.


    So I think it ridiculous to assert that it's somehow useless or trivial in learning how to solve problems such as these. You may not be solving for the area of x in your careeer, but you are certainly using the same way of thinking and applying them to problems in your daily life, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Quote

    I am pretty sure Finland already does this

    Math is still mandatory in Finland.