Page 34 of 84 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
35
36
44
... LastLast
  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugenik View Post
    Yeh, the alcoholic with anger and control issues is also somehow the benevolent, reasonable one.. totally believable.
    Well, that's kinda the rub in this case. Neither is very trustworthy and both seem like kinda awful people.

    And before anyone starts: I don't care who's worse or who's more dishonest or whatever. Legit, don't give a single fuck. I'm not picking sides, I don't have to pick sides.

  2. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    She was specific in her answer: She did not edit the photo's. And she's likely 100% honest. Beyond that, I haven't the foggiest clue and don't care enough to devote any brainpower to this beyond eating popcorn.
    Where does one gain these powers to deduce whos telling the truth and who is not.

    Quite impressive you're 100% sure someone who is constantly looking at the jury when answering rather than the lawyer speaking to her is telling the truth.

    Very impressive....
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Except if that’s the “rub” Depp has no case.
    I never thought he had a proper legal case and have said repeatedly that he's more likely doing this to win in the court of public opinion. Or just try to bring Amber down in the mud with him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    Where does one gain these powers to deduce whos telling the truth and who is not.
    You don't need powers for this, it's common sense.

    "Did you edit this photo?"

    "No."

    Simple. That's not asking if the photo is edited (that may have been implied earlier and her claim different lighting which is likely a fuckin lie) in general, but in that specific question it's extremely easy to be honest while still allowing for the photo to be edited. She could have asked a friend. She could have asked her lawyers. Her lawyers could have had someone do it. And even if any of those are true (AND I HAVE NO CLUE), she is still 100% truthful in saying she didn't edit the photo.

    For the rest of your post: My comment is literally limited to that one question and her response. Nothing else.

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I never thought he had a proper legal case and have said repeatedly that he's more likely doing this to win in the court of public opinion. Or just try to bring Amber down in the mud with him.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You don't need powers for this, it's common sense.

    "Did you edit this photo?"

    "No."

    Simple. That's not asking if the photo is edited (that may have been implied earlier and her claim different lighting which is likely a fuckin lie) in general, but in that specific question it's extremely easy to be honest while still allowing for the photo to be edited. She could have asked a friend. She could have asked her lawyers. Her lawyers could have had someone do it. And even if any of those are true (AND I HAVE NO CLUE), she is still 100% truthful in saying she didn't edit the photo.

    For the rest of your post: My comment is literally limited to that one question and her response. Nothing else.
    So your problem is with how the lawyer phrased the question?

    Because it would be safe to assume amber is the one TAKING the photos because they look like selfies and assuming shes assaulted she would presumably take the photos in the privacy of her bathroom rather than bringing in her aquaman team in a more public setting.

    So its safe to assume amber who was taking snaps of johnny sleeping every other day is quite the photographer and would have no problem taking care of the photos herself.
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    So your problem is with how the lawyer phrased the question?
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    Because it would be safe to assume amber is the one TAKING the photos because they look like selfies and assuming shes assaulted she would presumably take the photos in the privacy of her bathroom rather than bringing in her aquaman team in a more public setting.
    She took the initial photo, yes. And it's very likely someone else edited the photo into the second image.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    So its safe to assume amber who was taking snaps of johnny sleeping every other day is quite the photographer and would have no problem taking care of the photos herself.
    Sure, but why do it herself when she knows she'll likely be asked if she edited it?

    This is basic legal shit.

  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.



    She took the initial photo, yes. And it's very likely someone else edited the photo into the second image.



    Sure, but why do it herself when she knows she'll likely be asked if she edited it?

    This is basic legal shit.
    oh piss off with your signing and "U wanNa fitE GovNeR" I was asking you a question because what you said sounded retarded so I was trying to confirm you are not that brain dead. Basic human interaction shit
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  7. #667
    Pit Lord Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    *sigh*

    You're looking for a fight you're not going to find. The lawyer asked a specific question, to which a specific response can be truthful. The specific question was if she edited the photo, not if anyone else edited it.
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies. Lets even say we extend her the benefit of the doubt, though probably an unearned one given her conduct, and say she did not edit the photos herself. Now what? She has still lied under oath by claiming they're two, unique pictures taken by her, and there's still been an attempt by her team to pervert the outcome of the trial. The only difference in this case is that while she's still likely guilty of perjury, there's now another party in the trial (her council, her witnesses, or a third party) that is guilty of fabricating evidence.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies.
    Agree. I'm unsure how anyone can claim she was "100% honest" about her not editing the pics when she had blatantly lied during the same sequence of questions. 100% means there can be no doubt and there sure as hell is doubt. Amber herself testified that the pic on the left was red because it had vanity lighting from a difference source whereas the pic on the right didn't. She said they were taken at two distinct moments and that's a lie as the two pics perfectly overlap. So how can anyone say "well she may have 100% lied with this PROVEN thing but then she was 100% truthful with this UNPROVEN thing 10 seconds later?" That's showing more faith than I see from most religious people.

  9. #669
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    The problem is that she testified to taking both photos in different lighting. If she had not testified as having taken both images then it would be a different story, but the moment she presented them as two unique, unaltered images is where the problem lies. Lets even say we extend her the benefit of the doubt, though probably an unearned one given her conduct, and say she did not edit the photos herself. Now what? She has still lied under oath by claiming they're two, unique pictures taken by her, and there's still been an attempt by her team to pervert the outcome of the trial. The only difference in this case is that while she's still likely guilty of perjury, there's now another party in the trial (her council, her witnesses, or a third party) that is guilty of fabricating evidence.
    Also that there is no "oops, I must have misremembered" in court. You can get challenged, and you'll get a chance to retract or say you're actually not sure, but if you double down, that's perjury. Even if it was an honest mistake. Which your lawyers should have caught and coached you on.

    Doesn't matter if she took the photos or did the editing herself, if she claims they were from two different photo sessions under different lighting. since they're clearly the same photo, edited.


  10. #670
    Scarab Lord Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    4,733
    lol it's in the trial now


  11. #671
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,944
    So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

    Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.

    Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.

  12. #672
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

    Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.
    Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vox
    To put it mildly, this surreal explosion of internet culture vilification of Heard feels dispiriting and troubling. What made so many millions of people feel so justified in treating such a personal, toxic relationship like popcorn fodder? At what point before the bot armies and men’s rights activists poisoned the well of discourse around this trial could a reasonable assessment of the evidence and the facts have been made? Did that point ever exist?
    The article just drones on and on like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.
    Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.

  13. #673
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    So the Vox article (if you want to call it that) that was published yesterday was some pretty incendiary garbage full of patently false claims against people. Are American right wing media outlets trying to use it for their own gain? Undoubtedly.

    Their claims that the narrative on social media in favor of Depp has been shaped by bots, citing an article from when the UK trial was going on a year ago. They actually make that claim twice using different articles, one from 2020 and one from 2021. They also have the audacity to cite one of their own ideologically charged articles claiming that the alt-right uses sexism and other kinds of bigotry to recruit men into their ideology.

    Most of the people I see tweeting about this trial are not what I'd ever even consider right wing, most of them are either libertarians and centrists, leftists or progressives. The progressives are having literal meltdowns because so much doubt has been put into the claims made by Amber Heard because she's looking like a huge hypocrite. Everyone else seems to understand that there's way more nuance to the trial and that being hyperbolic does no one any good.
    Why the hell would you think anything about this trial or people's perspectives on it is political? You're feeding directly into Vox's point and don't seem to realize it.


  14. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.

    The article just drones on and on like that.

    Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vox
    The Depp-Heard trial has just trained millions of people to discard their own empathy, their own rational judgment, in exchange for the gleeful mockery, rejection, and belittlement
    The article is complaining about the same thing people did against Depp when the allegations came up, which no one complained about. Or well, if you did and say, 'hold on, we don't know the full story' you would be labeled a sexist straight up.

    It's hard to take an article like this seriously when everything in it just reads that you should form your behavior and opinion based on genders rather than evidence.
    Pointing to a previous trial is pointless. Lots of trials comes to the wrong verdict... hence why there are innocence programs and such. People are using up to date information to form their opinion, meanwhile they are ignoring everything that has been shown and just cling on to "they decided this". Lots of current evidence wasn't allowed in that trial afaik.

    The thing I do agree with though is that you shouldn't actively hate or doing smear campaigns and such for ANYONE. Problem is they are clearly biased.
    The fact that they attribute a coming regression of believe women on people calling out her lies instead of Heards lies is further proof of my previous point that only thing that matters for them is genders and their own bias to their own narrative.

    Unlike the article I hope this leads to betterment of how people behave when it comes to allegations and claims and such. People went from blindly supporting Heard instantly and demonizing Depp with no proof... but suddenly now it's a problem when there are proof of the reverse?

    I've said it before, I say it again... IGNORE the genders involved. Believe the claimant and take it seriously, but don't trust any party involved until investigation is gone and for the love of god... LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE.
    Don't be like Dr. Hughes.

    if people and journalists adhere to above points, it won't become the clusterfuck it currently is. But I highly doubt the journalists will change much, since sensationalism is what sells... Next allegation that will come up will just create articles that repeat this process. Articles that has been posted recently just shows that it's all about mispresent information that everyone can see at trial to further the narrative they are trying to sell.




    EDIT:
    https://youtu.be/DhOwEyYjonk?t=2032

    Talking about a similar article.
    Last edited by Kumorii; 2022-05-21 at 05:38 PM.

  15. #675
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Why the hell would you think anything about this trial or people's perspectives on it is political? You're feeding directly into Vox's point and don't seem to realize it.
    That's the thing, I don't. They do. And that is a huge problem when it comes to actually having reasonable discourse online these days. People will cite these shitrag sites as being credible (even though they use their own blatantly biased reporting as citations for sources) and all of a sudden we have issues. Thankfully most people are starting to see through their garbage (and this isn't exclusive to Vox either).

  16. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Link for anyone curious. The whole thing reads like a parody of "everything I don't like is Russian bots" journalism.

    The article just drones on and on like that.

    Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that being personally invested in the personal lives of these carnie trash actors marks someone as not being authentically right-wing.
    I enjoy it, sue me.

    Preferably with AH’s lawyers.

  17. #677
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    That's the thing, I don't. They do. And that is a huge problem when it comes to actually having reasonable discourse online these days. People will cite these shitrag sites as being credible (even though they use their own blatantly biased reporting as citations for sources) and all of a sudden we have issues. Thankfully most people are starting to see through their garbage (and this isn't exclusive to Vox either).
    You explicitly made it political in your own post, so spare me the flaccid post-facto rejection; your politicization of the trial is right there in black and white.


  18. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You explicitly made it political in your own post, so spare me the flaccid post-facto rejection; your politicization of the trial is right there in black and white.
    Black on pasty yellow/green

  19. #679
    People just like to put everything into their left or right boxes.

  20. #680
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,395
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    being a domestic abuser and wife beater is going well? lol okay.
    The only people saying they saw Johnny Depp be a domestic abuser was Heard and her sister.

    Funny, that.

    Here's one thing people need to understand, while violence against your spouse is bad, there's a big difference between being a chronic domestic abuser, and two people who get really angry at each other and hit each other. That's called a fight. Not domestic abuse. Amber has admitted several times to hitting Depp.

    Domestic abuse can be one time. A "domestic abuser" implies chronic problems.
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2022-05-22 at 12:07 AM.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •