Victim blaming mentality

pickledonionspaceraider

Gavin83 wrote: »

Then why bother posting this topic at all? You clearly don't seem interested in debate. .

You accused me of wanting to trying to provoke an argument earlier, so I back off as an argument isn't worth either of our time. But when I back off, I get accused of not being interested in a debate.

There is a world of difference between an argument (petty minded put downs and insults tit for tat) and a debate (a more intelligent conversation) which seems to be one and the same thing on here.

If you would like to debate, I am there. But argue, like I said, it is not worth either of our time

FYI I never said you were rude and I was not ignoring you previous questions I believe I responded to each post you made and told you where to look. If I missed any my bad

pickledonionspaceraider

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

If it's the story I'm thinking about, the take away owner got jailed for 6 years. He told the guy that the powder used wasn't nut and was something else, but he'd substituted the powder with the nut one because it was cheaper I think.

That's the one. Completely horrifying

onomatopoeia99

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I do also think that people will say stuff to people on the internet that they would NEVER say to people in real life.

I can't speak for people in general, but everything I write online in a discussion I would say to that person's face. I'm very careful about that, it is my "should I post this?" benchmark when engaging in discussion of an issue.

There some things I might write in the MH thread that I wouldn't tell people that know me, but that's not in the form of a debate.

Gavin83

Lily-Rose wrote: »

But I also see more nice, kind posts than mean ones. Sometimes the OP does overreact, and whilst I did see someone calling the lady hysterical over someone hanging outside her house all day, I didn't see anyone on that thread being horrible.

Look, I have to offer an apology. I thought the OP in that thread had asked "Am I being hysterical?" but having reread it I appear to be wrong.

Saying that I agree with the above. I don't think Pigpens comment was meant in a nasty way but I could see how it may come across as such. I do think that OP was worrying about nothing and moving them on would be wrong but I'll let this drop.

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

If it's the story I'm thinking about, the take away owner got jailed for 6 years. He told the guy that the powder used wasn't nut and was something else, but he'd substituted the powder with the nut one because it was cheaper I think.

In that case clearly the take away owner deserves everything he gets. I wasn't familiar with the story though so it's hard to comment properly on it.

Look pickledonionspaceraider, I honestly don't feel like I'm ever nasty to people on here. I am blunt at times but then again I'm quite blunt in real life as well. My job requires me to be fairly blunt so I don't know if that's influenced me but I don't speak to people on here any different to how I would in real life. If I feel someone is wrong I have no issues telling them so, although I do always try to offer some advice. I do find pure sympathy a little challenging and will always try and find a practical solution to the matter in hand but I think this is a fairly common male trait.

Saying that I'm not perfect. There have been times on here people have said something that's pushed my buttons and my answers have been less constructive.

pigpen

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

I think you sound like a nice, compassionate human being.

I am, i'm glad that came across .. but I don't enable or encourage negative behaviours, like other support it has to be warranted and deserved.

If people want to post their crap for others to tell them their unreasonable behaviour is reasonable they shouldn't ask for opinions, they should just say 'will someone agree with me or I will claim I am being bullied and snivel'

pigpen

Gavin83 wrote: »

Look, I have to offer an apology. I thought the OP in that thread had asked "Am I being hysterical?" but having reread it I appear to be wrong.

Saying that I agree with the above. I don't think Pigpens comment was meant in a nasty way but I could see how it may come across as such. I do think that OP was worrying about nothing and moving them on would be wrong but I'll let this drop.
.

actually she said 'paranoid' not hysterical.. but being paranoid about someone minding their own business, going about their day is hysterical.. why would you do that??


The people outside probably don't even know there is anyone in the house, nor would they care.. they aren't harming anyone just standing there surely? If they were defecating in the persons garden or littering or being rowdy and destructive it is different but just chatting and drinking pop.. when did that become an offence?

It was written more in disbelief that someone could be so petty rather than 'mean' but if thats how they want to take it, thats fine by me.

cyantist

pigpen wrote: »

If people ask for opinions then they will get them.. if they don't like the responses or are too delicate to deal with the replies them maybe they are in the wrong place.

But you say that as someone who, from my experience, gives their opinions without being unnecessarily nasty. And I agree with Gavin83 that there is a huge difference between being blunt and being nasty. Unfortunately there are a minority of people who are nasty, and it's a shame if they put people off posting and receiving helpful (and sometimes blunt) advice.

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

If it's the story I'm thinking about, the take away owner got jailed for 6 years. He told the guy that the powder used wasn't nut and was something else, but he'd substituted the powder with the nut one because it was cheaper I think.

Although the restaurant owner deserved jail, I am surprised they secured a conviction. He substituted the nut powder for one that actually contained no nuts at all. The poor guy specified no nuts, and that's what he got. He apparently mentioned nothing about there being no peanuts in his meal, only no nuts.

I appreciate this is me being pedantic, but I think people need to be clearer on these issues as it's a case of life and death for people involved.

suki1964

I thought that the ground almond mix which was expensive,was substituted with a cheaper ground nut mix, which contained peanuts

Three weeks previously a young lass had also had a reaction, she survived

When health officials went in after the death of the young man and ordered a no nut meal, it contained peanuts

cyantist

That is what happened - they swapped out ground almonds for ground peanuts. But I'm just surprised the guy didn't get off on the technicality that peanuts aren't nuts. Not that he should, he obviously had no concern for anyone's health and to continue this practice when the girl had a reaction only a few weeks earlier is disgusting.

Pollycat

cyantist wrote: »

That is what happened - they swapped out ground almonds for ground peanuts. But I'm just surprised the guy didn't get off on the technicality that peanuts aren't nuts. Not that he should, he obviously had no concern for anyone's health and to continue this practice when the girl had a reaction only a few weeks earlier is disgusting.

According to The Metro paper the victim was 'clear about his allergy to peanuts' so assuming that the report is accurate there is no 'technicality'.