Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post

    the "benefit of the doubt" is a phrase used when you are ascribing to someone a moral failing that you will graciously and magnanimously refrain from placing on someone. Which means you find survival sex work a moral failing. Otherwise there's no benefit of the doubt to convey.


    From Cambridge Dictionary:


    give sb the benefit of the doubt


    to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either:

    ​​​​​​
    • I didn't know whether his story was true or not, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.



    You see Ally, your dictionary is making heads and tails to the phrase that has nothing to do with morality failings.


    You are not alone, we see it often recently, the meanings of words and phrases being twisted and blown dramatically to give a birth of a fanciful meanings, just to support someone's point of view, when did you visit Lechmere and Maybrick threads last time?!


    I think the little truth in Hallie's book overweighs the titanic 'facts' that we have, because it is more important, and the only thing that we can do for those poor victims.


    ​​When you say something like this:


    >> But, in case you weren't aware, they're quite dead


    Then expect to lose every time, even from Rubenhold.


    ​​​​​
    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark J D
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    ... do you think Hallie suffers the same sexism that I have, or maybe something completely different this time?!
    At the risk of provoking more of this jackass's whirling lunacies, I feel I ought to say that what I think Rubenhold 'suffers from' is, inter alia, such an intense need (internally generated, externally imposed, or both) to have 'discovered something new!', that she came up with a load of counter-evidential codswallop and packaged it as if it were a paradigm-shifting discovery. Now she's surfing the Zeitgeist all the way to major success -- with the help of the countless mediocre intellects and low-grade integrities who not only love what she wrongly says is true, but also adore the permission it gives them to sanctify their surplus guilty hate by self-righteously venting it on a powerless and largely innocent outgroup.

    All in all, it's been a disgusting exhibition, albeit one that shows the real face of our age with unaccustomed clarity.

    M.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Whether you like it Ally or not, women don't like to be described as prostitutes.
    And yet, we aren't describing them as thus. We are stating whether or not they engaged in the practice as a matter of survival. But, in case you weren't aware, they're quite dead and immune to your judgment based on what they did to survive. But people generally speaking don't like to be called alcoholics when in the midst of getting blind drunk either. And yet, you're not taking up arms to defend them against these slurs on their character.

    And I will give them the benefit of not being described as such.
    And here it is. You see, the "benefit of the doubt" is a phrase used when you are ascribing to someone a moral failing that you will graciously and magnanimously refrain from placing on someone. Which means you find survival sex work a moral failing. Otherwise there's no benefit of the doubt to convey.

    You can accuse me of sexism if you want, not as if I can prevent you, can I?!
    Thank you, quite right.

    But since you are successful in exposing the underlying truth that guides people's thinking, do you think Hallie suffers the same sexism that I have, or maybe something completely different this time?!
    Oh I absolutely think that Hallie suffers from the same form of sexist ideology when it comes to sex workers. What, were you under the impression that only men indulged in sexism against women? My goodness no. Women are quite capable of being as or more misogynistic and sexist than men are, after all we have the "benefit" of having more exposure to its application on a daily and pervasive basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post

    What's the exact "benefit" that is conveyed to them by your stance?


    Whether you like it Ally or not, women don't like to be described as prostitutes.

    And I will give them the benefit of not being described as such.

    You can accuse me of sexism if you want, not as if I can prevent you, can I?!

    ​​​​​But since you are successful in exposing the underlying truth that guides people's thinking, do you think Hallie suffers the same sexism that I have, or maybe something completely different this time?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post

    I will give them the benefit of the doubt.


    The Baron

    What's the exact "benefit" that is conveyed to them by your stance?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    I am really not in favour of deliberately ignoring the bl**ding obvious. It is really does nothing for ones credibility. Being pedantic is one thing but this? Just silly and a little petty.



    Then why don't you adopt the 100% certainty then?!

    What is this if not being pedantic?!

    And if you started your post saying we can never be 100% sure, why did you end it disecribing this doubt status as silly and petty?!

    You don't see the paradox in your ressoning do you?!

    I will not describe those victims as prostitutes based on your fondness of numbers and math.


    ​​​​​​I will give them the benefit of the doubt.


    ​​​​​​
    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 11-30-2021, 02:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Though of course we can never be 100% sure. I would say with all the evidence we have and looking at the profile and circumstances of the victims we can say with a 99.9% probability they were prostitutes. We can also say that the culprit was a killer of prostitutes as it is 99.9% likely that those killed were prostitutes. However we can not say for any certainty that it was the culprits motive. It is extremely likely that the culprit aimed to be a killer of vulnerable women i.e. those he was able to kill with the lest risk possible. This whole were they weren't they discussion seems completely futile to me. I am really not in favour of deliberately ignoring the bl**ding obvious. It is really does nothing for ones credibility. Being pedantic is one thing but this? Just silly and a little petty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    No oodles of money needed Ally.Just fourpence.I do not need to answer your last question as to what work was avaiable to Nichols.She didnt claim she was going to get money by working.What she said was,'I'll soon get my doss money;see what a jolly bonnet Ive got now'.No mention of work.Perhaps she was hoping to sell her bonnet.
    Next question.
    Ah and there you go avoiding the questions because you don't feel you need to support or provide evidence for your preposterous claims. Wrong, but illustrative. So let's take the jolly bonnet statement. And to whom precisely do you think she'd have luck SELLING a bonnet to at 2 in the morning? If she'd been inclined to sell a bonnet, she could have done it at any reasonable time of day, like when the pawn shops were open, but no, she waited until the wee small hours of the morning, when there's just loads of fashionistas willing to take the hat off an unfortunates head, right out on the street. This is a totally logical plan. So you're claiming that they weren't prostitutes, they were just complete morons with mental deficiencies who didn't know when the pawn shops were open?

    The pretzels your implicit bias make you twist yourself into are quite amusing. But yes, you do need to answer what jobs were available, because Annie had spent the day with her friends, presumably she'd have tapped any of them while she was drinking with them that day, and therefore, how was she going to "earn" her doss money? No bonnet, friends had already been exploited all day for beer money of they'd had any to spare, and yet she still planned to come back soon with her doss money. So what jobs, were available at 2 in the morning for a woman to earn her doss in Whitechapel 1888?

    But keep twisting. Watching people make unhinged arguments blinded by their own bias is quite my favorite sport. It gives me insight into so much insanity currently happening in the world today, where people deny the obvious and what's clearly right in front of them because what they believe to be true, is true, regardless of facts.

    Like you implicitly believing Hutchinson on the loan and use him, despite failing apparently to recognize that my point is exemplified in that .... he had no money to loan MJK.... but ignoring the part that she went off canoodling with another "well-dressed" man. Was that well-dressed stranger just going to loan her money too out of the kind goodness of his heart. Sooooo many generous and willing men in Whitechapel, helping out all those unfortunate women, purely out of charity. That's such a better story isn't it? So cute, which parts of witness testimony you disregard, and which you cling to, because you're incapable of admitting what literally everyone who knew them and the facts indicate. Not at all implicit in the bias.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark J D
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    ... You who insist the five were criminals engaged in criminal behavior at the time of their deaths, or myself who is more cautious in determining their status...
    <*boggle*...>

    M.

    Last edited by Mark J D; 11-30-2021, 11:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    No oodles of money needed Ally.Just fourpence.I do not need to answer your last question as to what work was avaiable to Nichols.She didnt claim she was going to get money by working.What she said was,'I'll soon get my doss money;see what a jolly bonnet Ive got now'.No mention of work.Perhaps she was hoping to sell her bonnet.
    Next question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Now Ally appears to suggest I would have to lie or prove mysef wrong to avoid a direct question,and the question is,how did they plan to earn their doss money at 2 in the morning.No one knows,the victims didn't say,and I am no mind reader.By the same token,no one is in a posion to state it would only be by prostitution.Perhaps,like Kelly,as evidenced by Hutchinson,it could be by borrowing from friends,or aqaintances.So by borrowing.Now I didn't have to lie or prove myself wrong,did I Ally?
    What is your next stupid question?

    LOL... I also said that prevarication, deliberate misleading, was also an option which "No one knows, I'm not a mind- reader" falls under. So thank you for proving me right. I appreciate it. But yeah, try to sell "they were borrowing from their friends" who just had oodles of money to hand out to their friends. All those generous people in Whitechapel with just buckets of money to give away.

    So here's the next direct question, Harry darling. What MEANS of earning money were available to a woman at 2 am in 1888, that they could have realistically been going out to work at and earn doss money? 2 am, 1888. What jobs were out there for these women to go out on the streets and earn their doss?

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Seems there are killers today who select victims who can offer little resistence.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Who is the most blinkered Paul,you who insist the five were prostitutes or myself who admits the evidence might lead to a position of suspicion only..You who insist the five were criminals engaged in criminal behavior at the time of their deaths,or myself who is more cautiious in determining their status.How can I broke no arguement,I do not control the boards,and you will continue to argue because you have placed yourself in a position where admiting a measure of being wrong would cause embarrasment.
    Now Ally appears to suggest I would have to lie or prove mysef wrong to avoid a direct question,and the question is,how did they plan to earn their doss money at 2 in the morning.No one knows,the victims didn't say,and I am no mind reader.By the same token,no one is in a posion to state it would only be by prostitution.Perhaps,like Kelly,as evidenced by Hutchinson,it could be by borrowing from friends,or aqaintances.So by borrowing.Now I didn't have to lie or prove myself wrong,did I Ally?
    What is your next stupid question?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post



    We even have been accused of sexism just because we refused to accept the victims were proven prostitutes!!!


    It is a case of throwing anything that comes to your hand against your opponent!



    The Baron

    No it's a case of exposing an underlying truth that guides people's thinking. Why do you fight so hard to argue that they weren't engaged prostitution when the facts as we have them indicate that they were? Their friends and family all at the time accepted them as prostitutes, and yet, here you are at a remove of a 100+ years, arguing the opposite. For what possible reason? Why do you need to fight so hard to accept what everyone who knew them accepted as fact?

    If their friends and family and THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KNEW THEM, stated that they were, then what possible reason is there for YOU to argue they were not? If we don't know the facts either way, why in this one instance, are we arguing against basic logic (what were they doing to earn money at 2 am) and witness testimony from friends and family (that they were prostitutes).

    Funny how nobody is arguing vehemently against the majority being alcoholics, when we have no direct evidence of that either. Just what other people said. Funny, isn't it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Have I put the blame on anyone for anything?Certainly not.Nor have I relied on anyone to support my claims.There is only one way to obtain the truth,and that is to prove the elements,whether it be to show historical truth.or for any other reason.Those claiming the Ripper victims were prostitutes admit the proof is not there.If the proof is not there ,then the truth that the victims were prostitutes,or were prostituting themselves the nights they were killed,cannot be had.A child would understand that.
    All that the evidence shows,is that there is a basis for suspicion.Nothing more,and I have conceded that.What more do they want? Too late to prove those suspicions.It will remain a case of the victims could have been prostitututes,but have not been shown as such.
    Paul.Ally,and a few others have locked themselves into a position,where it has become a contest between them and Rubenhold,and they must win.Childish.
    The above two posts show their desperation.
    And only a child would continue to avoid a direct question, asked directly when he knows he can't get out of it except by lying or prevaricating or proving himself wrong.

    So again: Both Polly and Annie made statements that they were going out to earn their doss money in the wee small hours of the morning, so do answer, directly: how did they plan to earn their doss money at 2 in the morning?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X