Actually that's what Depp's lawyer said, you dweeb:
Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
-
- Musketeer
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Jan 17, 2021
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
I haven't been following so I can't comment on who is more in the wrong - seems like they both are to a degree at least - but isn't the court case about whether or not she defamed him with the article, not who was more abusive? So therefore they only have to believe one of her accusations of abuse in order to rule that the article wasn't defamatory? Court of public opinion is very different to what is actually on trial
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Seems obvious to me this is about her trying to #metoo Depp, but it backfired, since she didn't have a good case.
What I said about Depp's lawyers sensing that the #metoo movement has lost steam and is becoming a recipe for some women to just seek revenge against some of their exes is just my interpretation of events. You can feel free to disagree with that, I'll allow it
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Yes, this seems correct.
The lawyer was in fact not saying that but saying your first sentence. This is the incel part, because no one but incels in fact believe that. For every movement and in every system there are people who take advantage of it and exposing someone for doing that doesnt make the movement or system any less valid.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Which is not what I said. Ironically, it seems you're the one having problems with understanding English or reading comprehension. Because I never implied #metoo is less valid because someone took advantage of it.gibson wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 00:36Yes, this seems correct.The lawyer was in fact not saying that but saying your first sentence. This is the incel part, because no one but incels in fact believe that. For every movement and in every system there are people who take advantage of it and exposing someone for doing that doesnt make the movement or system any less valid.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
So, in your opinion when a movement is “becoming a recipe for some women to seek revenge against some of their exes” you would say that’s still a valid movement, because if that is in fact true, and #metoo is simply women seeking revenge against their exes, I would believe it was no longer valid. If you can’t see that implication I’m not sure what more to say.Dolan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 00:56Which is not what I said. Ironically, it seems you're the one having problems with understanding English or reading comprehension. Because I never implied #metoo is less valid because someone took advantage of it.gibson wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 00:36Yes, this seems correct.The lawyer was in fact not saying that but saying your first sentence. This is the incel part, because no one but incels in fact believe that. For every movement and in every system there are people who take advantage of it and exposing someone for doing that doesnt make the movement or system any less valid.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Yeah because it's some women not all. Obviously there are a lot of valid cases, but this sort of public pressure on justice to make an example of male offenders created a temptation for women that didn't have a clear case of harassment but who wanted to take advantage of this for various reasons.gibson wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 01:06So, in your opinion when a movement is “becoming a recipe for some women to seek revenge against some of their exes” you would say that’s still a valid movement, because if that is in fact true, and #metoo is simply women seeking revenge against their exes, I would believe it was no longer valid. If you can’t see that implication I’m not sure what more to say.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
This @iNcog.PatrickLFC wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 23:48I haven't been following so I can't comment on who is more in the wrong - seems like they both are to a degree at least - but isn't the court case about whether or not she defamed him with the article, not who was more abusive? So therefore they only have to believe one of her accusations of abuse in order to rule that the article wasn't defamatory? Court of public opinion is very different to what is actually on trial
Not sure it matters though. JD's intent isn't necessarily to win the defamation case, it's to get un-cancelled by subjecting Amber's claims to high levels of scrutiny in a very public setting. He won in the court of public opinion and that's the only one that really matters.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
You projected your own opinion onto JD's lawyers and/or the public by saying "Depp's team correctly sensed that there's a growing irritation at this #metoo movement" when that wasn't said or implied anywhere.Dolan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 00:56Which is not what I said. Ironically, it seems you're the one having problems with understanding English or reading comprehension. Because I never implied #metoo is less valid because someone took advantage of it.gibson wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 00:36Yes, this seems correct.The lawyer was in fact not saying that but saying your first sentence. This is the incel part, because no one but incels in fact believe that. For every movement and in every system there are people who take advantage of it and exposing someone for doing that doesnt make the movement or system any less valid.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
There is a clip of Heard specifically admitting to writing the op Ed because Depp is a powerful, powerful man.Goodspeed wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 08:00This @iNcog.PatrickLFC wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 23:48I haven't been following so I can't comment on who is more in the wrong - seems like they both are to a degree at least - but isn't the court case about whether or not she defamed him with the article, not who was more abusive? So therefore they only have to believe one of her accusations of abuse in order to rule that the article wasn't defamatory? Court of public opinion is very different to what is actually on trial
Not sure it matters though. JD's intent isn't necessarily to win the defamation case, it's to get un-cancelled by subjecting Amber's claims to high levels of scrutiny in a very public setting. He won in the court of public opinion and that's the only one that really matters.
I also didn't really see anything per se that Depp did that was abuse, but I didn't follow the whole trial.
Agree that he won public opinion already though, turd is just dead in the water now
Also is perjury just not a thing? Because Amber and her witnesses seem to done a fair amount of it
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Not an expert on defamation law so idrk what kind of burden of proof it involves. Thing is, neither is the jury an expert on defamation law, they're just a bunch of rando plebs, how the fuck are they supposed to know all the precedents and make a proper judgment? It could probably go either way since it will be decided by jury deliberation where the best salesmen end up convincing everyone else of whatever random take on defamation law they pulled out of their asses.
The jury system is so weird.
The jury system is so weird.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
what if the precedents were wrong though? It seems interesting to me that we would rely on precedents to make current judgements. Especially when you consider that there are so many mistakes that have been made in the justice system thus far.
As for defamation, well, I think heard lied about 95% of her accusations versus Depp. She also staged and faked pictures. We know she wrote the op-ed specifically versus Depp (she admitted to this in court). Seems that she did a lot to shit on Depp at a time when it would advance her career the most. I think even if Depp did do one or two bad things, it wouldn't invalidate the rest of the shit that Heard pulled. Which, by the way, when you look at how weak Heard's team was in the court room, it seems highly unlikely that Depp did anything wrong at all. I feel like Heard could have really milked the shit out of a genuine event of abuse and they came up with nothing. The extent of Depp being "abusive" is that he had a substance abuse problem. Which isn't domestic violence.
As for defamation, well, I think heard lied about 95% of her accusations versus Depp. She also staged and faked pictures. We know she wrote the op-ed specifically versus Depp (she admitted to this in court). Seems that she did a lot to shit on Depp at a time when it would advance her career the most. I think even if Depp did do one or two bad things, it wouldn't invalidate the rest of the shit that Heard pulled. Which, by the way, when you look at how weak Heard's team was in the court room, it seems highly unlikely that Depp did anything wrong at all. I feel like Heard could have really milked the shit out of a genuine event of abuse and they came up with nothing. The extent of Depp being "abusive" is that he had a substance abuse problem. Which isn't domestic violence.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
The judge explains the law to the jury in a separate meeting and the jury decide who is likely to be right within the legal framework explained to them by the judge.Goodspeed wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 08:30Not an expert on defamation law so idrk what kind of burden of proof it involves. Thing is, neither is the jury an expert on defamation law, they're just a bunch of rando plebs, how the fuck are they supposed to know all the precedents and make a proper judgment? It could probably go either way since it will be decided by jury deliberation where the best salesmen end up convincing everyone else of whatever random take on defamation law they pulled out of their asses.
The jury system is so weird.
There are two components to the actual judicial decision: 1) framing the case within the law, 2) deciding based on the evidence presented who is more truthful. The jury does the second part
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
If what I said wasn't true, then this overwhelming public opinion victory for Depp wouldn't have happened.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Sure but can we expect randos to fully understand this shit even if it is explained to them? They're not even really incentivized to pay attention afaik.Dolan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 12:03The judge explains the law to the jury in a separate meeting and the jury decide who is likely to be right within the legal framework explained to them by the judge.Goodspeed wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 08:30Not an expert on defamation law so idrk what kind of burden of proof it involves. Thing is, neither is the jury an expert on defamation law, they're just a bunch of rando plebs, how the fuck are they supposed to know all the precedents and make a proper judgment? It could probably go either way since it will be decided by jury deliberation where the best salesmen end up convincing everyone else of whatever random take on defamation law they pulled out of their asses.
The jury system is so weird.
There are two components to the actual judicial decision: 1) framing the case within the law, 2) deciding based on the evidence presented who is more truthful. The jury does the second part
Weird take. There are all kinds of reasons we can think of that would result in an overwhelming public opinion victory for JD without invoking a general sense of irritation at the #metoo movement. Such as:
- He's really popular (checks out)
- He wasn't abusive (seems to check out)
- He has better lawyers (checks out)
- AH is a piece of shit (checks out)
All things considered it would've been very strange if he hadn't won in PO court.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Amber Heard is difficult like that because she has a dykish temperament, so she was looking for 'bad boy' guys like Depp to tame her. That's why she shat on his bed and threw things at him. She was provoking him to manhandle her and make her feel like a purring cat.
But he didn't take the bait, so she took revenge on him by destroying his reputation.
She's desperate to find a guy who can keep her away from being a lesbian.
The depths of human motivation...
But he didn't take the bait, so she took revenge on him by destroying his reputation.
She's desperate to find a guy who can keep her away from being a lesbian.
The depths of human motivation...
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Dolan, for the sake of everyone involved please dont ever pretend like you understand women again.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Bro, women do this kind of "testing you" all the time. Hello, life is calling you! Did you like never got into a situation like that with a gf?
Amber was testing Depp to provoke him, it's clear as day. But it didn't work, so she got even more upset and spiteful.
I guess all these chicks who got into Depp's orbit were curious what was about Depp being a bad boy, they were hoping to get a piece of that. But Depp is just an introvert with 'black sheep syndrome', that gives off bad boy vibes without actually being a real bad boy.
Amber was testing Depp to provoke him, it's clear as day. But it didn't work, so she got even more upset and spiteful.
I guess all these chicks who got into Depp's orbit were curious what was about Depp being a bad boy, they were hoping to get a piece of that. But Depp is just an introvert with 'black sheep syndrome', that gives off bad boy vibes without actually being a real bad boy.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
I'll never understand Dolan when he says things like this but irregardless
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Just stop. It hurts to read this shit.Dolan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 14:28Bro, women do this kind of "testing you" all the time. Hello, life is calling you! Did you like never got into a situation like that with a gf?
Amber was testing Depp to provoke him, it's clear as day. But it didn't work, so she got even more upset and spiteful.
I guess all these chicks who got into Depp's orbit were curious what was about Depp being a bad boy, they were hoping to get a piece of that. But Depp is just an introvert with 'black sheep syndrome', that gives off bad boy vibes without actually being a real bad boy.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Well, what's your reading of this situation. Is Amber just an 'evil person doing evil things', is that the depth of it. What it looks like is what it is?RefluxSemantic wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 14:05Dolan, for the sake of everyone involved please dont ever pretend like you understand women again.
Just nasty people doing nasty things? Nah, human motivation runs much deeper than that.
Look at her history. Before hooking up with Depp she was in a lesbian relationship. It didn't work out, because a relation between two bulls locking horns constantly eventually breaks up. There's no complementarity.
Women like her seek this kind of introverts like Depp as a sort of bandaid. She's also been with Elon Musk, another semi-autistic introvert. There's a pattern here.
I noticed that women who have this strong lesbian streak in their personality tend to go for this kind of meek guys.
Probably because they are so temperamentally headstrong, they don't see themselves with some regular blokeish guy who wouldn't put up with their shit.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
One of the psychologist witnesses diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Seems to fit pretty well. Basically BPD means she's a shitty person to be with (checks out) and a lot of her attention-seeking behavior can be explained by HPD.
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
Well, how do you even diagnose those two without actualling having had AH as a patient. From what I'm seeing listed as symptoms, they look so general that it would be challenging to put a diagnose even if you talked to AH as a patient.
And apparently there isn't even a clear test to establish if someone has any of those disorders, it's all up to the psychologist to examine someone, which probably takes months before settling on a clear diagnose that shows an enduring pattern of behaviour.
The funny thing is that if you read the symptoms for HPD, they pretty much describe every Hollywood big shot. Maybe it's a job requirement
And apparently there isn't even a clear test to establish if someone has any of those disorders, it's all up to the psychologist to examine someone, which probably takes months before settling on a clear diagnose that shows an enduring pattern of behaviour.
The funny thing is that if you read the symptoms for HPD, they pretty much describe every Hollywood big shot. Maybe it's a job requirement
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?
From what I read these experts or psychologists have had to have sessions with her.Dolan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 15:58Well, how do you even diagnose those two without actualling having had AH as a patient. From what I'm seeing listed as symptoms, they look so general that it would be challenging to put a diagnose even if you talked to AH as a patient.
And apparently there isn't even a clear test to establish if someone has any of those disorders, it's all up to the psychologist to examine someone, which probably takes months before settling on a clear diagnose that shows an enduring pattern of behaviour.
The funny thing is that if you read the symptoms for HPD, they pretty much describe every Hollywood big shot. Maybe it's a job requirement
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests