Cristiano Ronaldo is a 20 year old Portugese footballer who plays for Manchester United who was accused, along with another man, of raping two women in a London hotel back in early October. One of the women dropped the allegations, the other maintained her claims but the CPS has decided that there’s not enough evidence for it to even warrant going to court.
This comes in the same week as a ‘rape’ case in London collapsed due to the accuser admitting that she was so drunk that she couldn’t even remember having sex with the man she’d accused of rape, let alone whether or not she’d given her consent. From the evidence presented to the court she had sex with a man she didn’t know in a corridor in her student accomodation building. In other words she felt like she’d done something slutty and decided to blame the guy, regardless of what it meant for him, then drunkenness.
Now not only do such cases trivialise the victims of real sexual assaults but they also involve significant resources as well as (almost invariably) the accused’s name being throw to the wolf-hacks who haven’t got anything better to talk about…
I’m verging on beng in favour of people who make such allegations that turn out to be patently false (and other similar allegations that are clearly used as a lever in some other battle) being charged with a serious offence. Certainly I think in all cases where the allegations are of such a serious nature that the names of all parties involved should be kept secret until after the trial. This only seems fair, though the media would be in uproar about it because speculating about legal cases makes up about 2% of their content, and across the board that is a lot of stories that they’d have to get from somewhere else.
I’m racking my brains for a single case where a footballer in the UK was actually convicted of such a crime. I remember Stan Collymore assaulting his then girlfriend Ulrika Jonsson (who later dated the England manager Sven, but who hasn’t?) but that was just common assault…
You’re racking your brains the wrong way. A “crime” is the word for the herd, especially a legal “crime”. A moral “crime” is what the philosopher thinks about, who thus will be likely to brand most footballers as dickheads whose feet are more virtuous than their heads. There is no difference between wanting to assult and acting to assult, as there is no difference between assulting straight away and assulting after “hanging out”… ask the angry woman who made the revengful accusation. But the ethical philsopher is racking his brains the wrong way too… otherwise how come he spends his wise life time ruminating over how do others act - in this case - getting laid? Mind the own, will, is what everybody who’s racking his brains the wrong way needs.
I don’t think that Nietzschean moral philosophy is particularly relevant to my rather tabloidesque discussion of a topic in which I take an unhealthy interest. But thanks for your comments and I’ll promise to bear them in mind…
Nietzschean philosophy, brother, is what I believe as probably the one and the only philosophy which can be applicable to things like Newton’s theory on the earth’s gravitational will to power, to how come Christiano Ronaldo managed to keep his dick inside his pants.
At the moment I’m contemplating applying Nietzschean psychoanalysis as why your new avarta is the way it is…
Brother, I’m not black either, but this is Nietzschean brother that I’m talking about. Alle menschen verden bruder, not verden but rather already verden, genetically anyway.
You dumped your cheesecake ino the bin because, if memory serves, I called you a cheesecake. Regarding to who, or what promped you to take on a woman face after the Phaedrus and Dunamis step, currently I have inadequate information to draw any sort of conclusion. I’m not even sure who the girl is.
She from star wars, hence I was actually inspired by James No. 2, who used to have a Yoda face and the line ‘not if something to say about it I have’ which I found funny every time I saw it…
And as to ‘Nietzschean brother’ - are you making out that I’m a Nietzschean? I assure you that I am not, or at least that I don’t conceive of myself as such. Not any longer…
However you may be able to help me out in identifying where in Nietzsche’s work he says words to the effect of: ‘The will to oppose other wills is a will just the same as the others’. It’s probably in BGE because that’s the only text by him that I’ve read cover to cover…
Sorry, been busy on rediting ravishly a lavish post of mine. Nietzsche addresses his readers as “brother”, out of a scientific point of view. So relaxe, I do not consider you as Nietzschean, not an adequate one anyway. “The will to oppose other wills is a will just the same as the others” - I would guess that would be in JGB - which you abbreviate as BGE. The reason behind my geuss is that the above quasi-quoatation is explainatory to the sensational and formulative proccess of the will to power, a point which Nietzsche firstly expanded properly in JGB. It’s great that you’ve covered up JGB other than say, MAZM or M, none of which presents a total overview of his philosophy, unlike JGB/BGE…
But it is significant: I sense, my white brother, a significant taste of strong individualism in your uproaring and forming spirit. Hence you, for precisely that reason, would never define yourself a Nietzschean, nor a Sartrean, a Deriddan for the same reason. What you seek is an attempt at synthesia grandiose. I do not criticize this way of intellectual progression, because the essence of such an approach is of a critical nature which belongs to the fruitful direction. The reason why I ranted the above is to enlight a certain misguided people that a devotion in Nietzschean philosophy is, not, neccessarily a radically maniatic choice. Those who insist on that it is, however, should have their refutation of Nietzsche presented right and bright in the first place. Again, I’m not onto you here.
I refused to read the last few passages of Zarathustra because I didn’t want to know how it ended. I missed out large bits of H, ATH because I was only interested in particular aspects of it at the time. I’ve got a big pile of his books, probably more than I have by any other writer except Derrida, but I’ve never read them.
The thing is that I would describe myself as a Derridan. My concerns and approaches mimic his (both deliberately and incidentally, I’ve always thought like a deconstructionist) so closely that it’s pointless to deny the comparison. And I’m not generalising, I think more like Derrida than I do like Barthes or Foucault or Beardsworth or whoever, though of course I’ve read more of Derrida’s work (and I mean actually read it, not intuitively guessed at its contents as I have with Nietzsche) and hence that is unsurprising.
You could say that I’m a total fraud intellectually. You could say that. Saying that, you could say that of anyone…
It ended, dare I tell you, in a cheerful and hopeful manner: Zarathustra, went down under, and for real this time. It’s a little sentimental for the reader because we all know what kind of a place that Zarathustra actually went down to… But precisely for this fact, we feel on our shoulders a suddenly befallen holy duty, that is to fulfil the prophecy, the wish, the will. You have read JGB, should you remember the concluding poem of that book: o summer garden; o NEW friends; it is time; it is late! … Therein lies my existential pursuit - to be one of these NEW friends of Nietzsche. It is time, but I’m never late.
If you say so. The Deriddan, owns something exquisitive to Nietzsche. Deridda’s sight on philosophies hitherto is clear enough because he’s read the first chapter of JGB. Deconstruction is a systemized phrase for perishing and overcoming, as well as for a honory doctrate in Cambridge. But we all know what Nietzsche regards of systems…
I dig. This is a referential matter, what matters here is what reference you take as stickyard to judge a certain objects as fraud. Guess what my stick is… not the like of Christiano Ronaldo’s I assure you…