Free Kesha

Goken wrote: Snowy, I think that rhetorical questions are one of those things that just don't translate well to a text environment. I didn't question for a second that someone answered it. But, knowing now that it was meant to be rhetorical I won't answer it.

I feel like I need to put some kind of statement in my sig about most of what I ask being rhetorical, but it would ruin the effect.

I actually have a very high IQ, people. I can generally figure it out with muh brains.

Like that, hehe xD

Goken wrote: One thing I do disagree with is a go fund me campaign for it. She's loaded, she doesn't need my money if money really is what will help, which I don't think it will.

Not knowing too much about the campaign (I hadn't even heard of it despite being pretty involved in blogging efforts etc. to spread awareness of her situation), I'd have to say I agree; I think you hit the nail on the head, that money isn't really the issue here. It's not about how much anyone can pay to get her out of this situation. If that were the case, it'd already have been handled.

The issue at hand is that a woman is testifying that she wants to change her contract, first testified that she's never had sex with the producer, and then changes her story once it doesn't go her way.

Now apparently she was repeatedly drugged and raped but never reported it once, meaning there's no evidence. Her lawyer has accused him of raping gaga too, so her lawyer's getting sued as well.

This guy's got an insurance on his investment in her, power over her, and enough money to generate his very own pussy gravitational field: no motive whatsoever.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that the odds, despite discriminatory legislation, are very much in his favour.

I don't think it's very mature to call them "blithering idiots." Your not agreeing with them is no reason to attack them on a personal level. That's actually a principle at this Temple, I believe: to criticize ideas, not people.

I stand by what I said in regards to poor people giving money to rich people. They are blithering idiots. If someone in"this room" has done so, then I have absolutely no issue telling it to their face: I believe that's how things should get done, as opposed to back-stabbing. Ah and the best bit is that I have made significant amounts of money from poor people, so I'm actually speaking from my experiences on the asshole side of the fence. Anyway. Such people can in turn make their arguments as to why it is a smart move to give the richest people on earth even more money. Not all rich people are bad. For all I know Kesha has been as benevolent as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett with her cash. Who knows. I'm always open to discussion and learning new things.

You on the other hand have accused the defendant of being a "crudball", whether found guilty or not, and have not actually offered any reason why: an empty personal attack against a defendant in an ongoing court case, something which the OP warns against. I don't need to tell you how you'd get kicked off the jury before even stepping in the court room.

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

Goken wrote: Snowy, I think that rhetorical questions are one of those things that just don't translate well to a text environment. I didn't question for a second that someone answered it. But, knowing now that it was meant to be rhetorical I won't answer it.

I feel like I need to put some kind of statement in my sig about most of what I ask being rhetorical, but it would ruin the effect.

I actually have a very high IQ, people. I can generally figure it out with muh brains.

Like that, hehe xD

i wasn't answering it for you, it was for other readers that may not have been able to catch on....that being said, i'm also an aries, we're blunt and to the point so occasionally rhetorical crap doesn't stand out as being rhetorical due to varying levels of subtlety etc....and yes many things don't translate well into a textual environment....

now a question, would you rather i just kept my mouth shut and not answered any questions asked?

how did you perceive that question? did you see it as sarcastic?as a joke? as a rhetorical one? angry?...without seeing my body language, or hearing my vocal tone it's not possible for everyone to understand it...it was meant to prove a point.....

you'll find that many of us here in totjo have high iq's....we just don't all share the same strengths.....i've taken the kiersey institutes iq test several times and i score in the top 1%....my iq is high enough to qualify for mensa, i also qualified for phi beta kappa (a national honor society) in college, i've received numerous letters from the dean, and senators congratulating me on making honor role and dean's list etc...i just don't go bragging about it or placing myself above others...to me a high iq simply means that one has had more experience in a particular area than some....

ren wrote: I don't need to tell you how you'd get kicked off the jury before even stepping in the court room.

Everything else aside, I whole-heartedly agree. I wouldn't be able to serve on the jury for a case like this, because I have personal prejudice against rapists and a non-negotiable personal code to believe the wounded side until proven otherwise, and that would make me unqualified to remain impartial to the accusations. I'd have absolutely no interest in pretending otherwise either.

ren wrote: The issue at hand is that a woman is testifying that she wants to change her contract, first testified that she's never had sex with the producer, and then changes her story once it doesn't go her way.

Now apparently she was repeatedly drugged and raped but never reported it once, meaning there's no evidence. Her lawyer has accused him of raping gaga too, so her lawyer's getting sued as well.

This guy's got an insurance on his investment in her, power over her, and enough money to generate his very own pussy gravitational field: no motive whatsoever.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that the odds, despite discriminatory legislation, are very much in his favour.

And THIS is EXACTLY why so many women don't report sexual assault. It's probably why she didn't to start with. She eventually did and look how it ended up.

I'm not even going to go into the misguided notions about his motivations for raping her.

For those unfamiliar with the case, here's what you need to know - What You Need To Know About Kesha's Court Battle With Dr. Luke

First, you'll notice that the accusations on both sides are, at this point, unfounded or unsupported with evidence.

Second, you'll notice that the judge refused to grant Kesha's request to get out of her contract because "Kesha has been permitted to record without Dr. Luke. She says, "It's not in Sony's best interest to make no money. Are you really saying they are not going to promote her [music]?" She adds that she will not "decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated."

This is important to me because I negotiate contracts with artists all the time and I can promise you that the legal wrangling that goes on between artists, labels and management is incredibly detailed. Right down to the brand of peanut butter allowed in the green room. It takes months to execute a contract just for a single performance. The amount of money involved is ridiculous and everybody thoroughly protects their interests. These are legally binding contracts with high powered lawyers on retainer that defend them. It's not just some a-hole manager and some suit at Sony, nor is it an artist just throwing a tantrum. There is WAY more going on here than just the rape accusations (which at this point are still ACCUSATIONS).

Before we start talking about "Freeing" Kesha, we should wait to see what comes out in court.

Senan wrote: Second, you'll notice that the judge refused to grant Kesha's request to get out of her contract because "Kesha has been permitted to record without Dr. Luke.

Well that's all I need to hear. Go with god, Kesha. You're free.

At least according to that guy.

A trick I do when making a question rhetorically is not putting in a question mark, to sort of highlite it as a statement. Dunno if it's "correct" but I tend to do things my own way sometimes
:blush:

Adder wrote: A trick I do when making a question rhetorically is not putting in a question mark, to sort of highlite it as a statement. Dunno if it's "correct" but I tend to do things my own way sometimes
:blush:

You are correct Adder , esp in forums or other online discussions it is advised not to end a rethorical question with a question mark. I even end them with an exclamation mark sometimes so i am sure nobody answers them