he was rather quiet, the journos reported that the aircon was so loud in the Courtroom it drowned him out he was speaking so softly - I think he was ill actually, he coughed a lot -which doesn't help concentration - but think he said what he needed to.
What was evident was that Roux who I think will try any trick in the book....had passed the Court the Defence Arguments on the deadline, but did not send to the Prosecution until the next day, giving Nel a day less than he could have to mull over their Argument- Nel stated this to the Court after Roux's verbal Closing Arguments.
He spoke too quickly, his accent came into play a lot IMO. His double thinking in Africaaans and English was also evident. Not his finest hour for me. But the main thrust of his argument was spot on.
I disagree - what about t-wat - that's a pretty innocuous word, usually said jovially and without an aggressive edge to it at all, but has exactly the same literal meaning.
Also if someone says - that was "frigging awful" - no eyelid would even be batted but the root meaning is closely related.
The notion that swear words of a female anatomical origin are usually more tabu than those of a male origin seems pretty shaky to me. Perhaps canvassed it across many languages and periods of history and if the result shows some significance - then ok - but I remain highly sceptical about that theory.
Swear words diverge rapidly from their route meanings and take on a purely emotive characteristic where the amount of offense is nothing more than a social convention IMO - and it changes with time as well!
you can bring history into the equation if you like, but we are talking about a word which is, in my contention, misogynist right now.
Take this forum itself.
Not even politely misspelled. Then I suggest c%nt...
With respect Moniker, IMO you're on thin ice if you're trying to argue that in social usage (like right here) we don't differentiate between these two insults, and the key differentiation between them is gendered.
Btw, I think "****" is diluted by its sonic similarity to "twit": a very inconsequential insult.
I call lots of people twits , and when angry (not to their facces) I might say they were a tw*t - but I have NEVER EVER called anyone the C word- i'd have a problem letting it role off my tongue even, it won't happen.
Thanks. I was actually a little disappointed by Nels closing speech. I know Greenland et al bigged it up , but I was not awfully impressed.
It will be what it will be. I just do t want to feel justice was not done. I'm sure you feel the same:)
Me neither. Nel's case is the weakness of OP's evidence and experts. He has a point. It wouldn't be so weak if it was true i'm sure.
Combined with the conviction that the connecting passage, locked door, and 4 bullets without cause' is so very illegal that his version must be rejected (which sounds quite agreeable conclusion but if so what's the point of having all these witnesses?)
I think we wanted something showing how it would all be pulled together to "make sense" of their row and his frantic attempts to cover his tracks after. A narrative.
The lack of a narrative is a consequence of 2 key blunders:
[1] Stumps: Knowing the argument circumstance means 1hr up & probs downstairs
[2] Female screams: Knowing that Mike's wife heard "help help help" around 3:16 same time that Berger/Johnson heard it.
I know people will hate me for saying that but it's true lol ;-)
We did AT LEAST get a narrative in the sense of him shouting "Get the F outta my house" - fleeing with her cell phone - slamming and locking - and presumably him soon thereafter shooting.
But not even a hint of an explanation for the trajectory of A - which looks like an anomaly for intention to kill? I think Roux mentioned something about "He doesn't know if she is seated." in passing. Why not Nel lol? If OP was to "guess blind" what other angle would he pick. A looks like a very good shot when viewed that way.
He's a bit rough and ready is Nel.
He's absolutely spot on about OP's "external locus of control" though and "victim of circumstances". I love those phrases. Maybe Kotze suggested them? Sounds like a psychiatrist finding to me.
He just needed someone to help make the circumstantial reconstructions more realistic IMO. They should have read Digital Spy lol :D:D
I call lots of people twits , and when angry (not to their facces) I might say they were a tw*t - but I have NEVER EVER called anyone the C word- i'd have a problem letting it role off my tongue even, it won't happen.
Btw, I am not calling Moniker or anyone a misogynist for using the word, I am just saying that the offensiveness of the word does link in my view to entrenched (and therefore a little obscured) misogyny in wider terms of language and culture.
Hi - thanks- much appreciated. I might still believe that OPs version is still reasonably possible, but that's not to say that I couldn't accept a different decision from judge Masipa- much of what the prosecution and posters on here have suggested is both credible and very possible. I just don't think it has been proven convincingly enough that OPs intruder version is so unbelievable that it should be disregarded.
And for what it's worth- I find your posts clear and reasoned
curly, to accept the intruder story you have to believe the following…….
The intrusion took place on a high security estate with an almost a crime free record (last home intrusion was 3 years previously).
The intruder just happened to select Pistorius’ house out of the several hundred other houses
The intruder bypassed the obvious entry to the house the broken downstairs window
The intruder then somehow accessed the bathroom window which was obviously shut on the remote chance that it may not be locked on the inside and also the alarm system was not functioning (unlikely in SA)
He then slide the bathroom window open with such force it slammed into the frame making so much noise Pistorius heard it over the noise of the fans
He just happened to do this at exactly the same moment as Reeva decided to go silently to the toilet and Pistorius decided to move some fans.
On Pistorius’ version the bugler then decided to enter the toilet slamming the door behind him.
Do you really believe all these things happened because you have to in order to believe the intruder story?
Point 1 – Burglars do not operate like that. They enter buildings silently. They make sure the alarm system is off. They never ‘trap’ themselves in a building but make sure an exit is clear in case they have to make a quick exit. Finally, they never go into toilets because there is nothing to steal in there!
Point 2 – The odds of an intruder entering a window at exactly the same time as a named person decides to go to the loo are astronomically high.
He spoke too quickly, his accent came into play a lot IMO. His double thinking in Africaaans and English was also evident. Not his finest hour for me. But the main thrust of his argument was spot on.
I know , getting the Defence's arguments a day later than he could have, because of the Defence Team...(cough) ..........and he was ill, he sounded ill, he didn't speak with the kind of clarity and volume that he had done through the trial - he seemed to rush, I agree - but what's done is done.
The relevance was simply to get a dig at smacka.;-);-)
I hope that's not true Smaka. That would be very shallow. I have really loved this thread and almost everyone on it. It has been extra ordinary that a thread of such divided opinion and diverse subject has been so friendly , polite and respectful, I. The main, of so many opinions.:D
I have loved the debate.
With respect Moniker, IMO you're on thin ice if you're trying to argue that in social usage (like right here) we don't differentiate between these two insults, and the key differentiation between them is gendered.
Btw, I think t-wat is diluted by its sonic similarity to "twit": a very inconsequential insult.
I don't agree lol. No one says 'twit' any more - it isn't in usage enough to explain away all the instances of the other lol - i'm glad you agree that this female-origin swear word is not offensive however! So that should at least cast some DOUBT on your theory that gender is relevant factor here. ;-)
I agree the C word is the least acceptable swear word in current English usage.
However - I disagree that this implies misogyny in its usage. It makes no logical sense to associate the intended targets of the word (usually other aggressive males one does not like) with the source meaning. There is no conceptual connection.
You mentioned the "aggressiveness" of the term - and indicated that's the source of th misogyny? But consider the following: "Prick" is similar. Also W
. Both are far more acceptable but has a very similar meaning (in terms of what you think about someone???). So it's not aggressiveness of usage, that aspect cannot be linked to gender.
The differences in terms of actual "aggression" in uses between C- , W- , P- etc. ... to borrow from Roux lol ... you would have to look through a magnifying glass to see it.
So the aggressiveness has nothing to do with the origin being male or female anatomy (IMO!) ;-)
I think it comes down simply to this: A matter of taste or distaste for a term. I think in fact it is gender neutral in content (the literal meaning is irrelevant to the contexts it is used it) - but it is nevertheless not perceived neutrally by both genders - but that's a different question. Misogyny is an attitude of the thinker/speaker surely - rather than the perceiver???
That's what I took issue with originally lol as I don't think it stands up to scrutiny
Updated Poll @15/8- Add your opinion and repost removing quotes
45 Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
9 Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
3 Culpable Homicide
2 Acquittal
0 Not Sure
Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him or her.
Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct. An example would be of an assault where a perpetrator gets into a fight and uses a knuckle duster to beat up the victim, not actually intending to kill the victim, and the victim dies.
Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent. The test in determining whether the accused is guilty of this crime lies in the question – “what a reasonable person would have done given the same circumstances?
I don't agree lol. No one says 'twit' any more - it isn't in usage enough to explain away all the instances of the other lol - i'm glad you agree that this female-origin swear word is not offensive however! So that should at least cast some DOUBT on your theory that gender is relevant factor here. ;-)I
your post reply to Nowhere Dan BIB; yeah they do, -and the female origin swear word is disgusting and perhaps it's just women, but majority I can tell you now would also find it disgusting. This has nothing to do with the trial, - it's rather a conversation stopper. (to be fair^_^)
Btw, I am not calling Moniker or anyone a misogynist for using the word, I am just saying that the offensiveness of the word does link in my view to entrenched (and therefore a little obscured) misogyny in wider terms of language and culture.
Another way to look at it is that there are markedly more abusive terms based on male genitals than on female. Apart from the four-letter female word ending in -unt (yeah, you got it, aunt ) I can only think of t wat, which is milder and usually used to suggest nothing worse than a foolish person.
However, on the boys' side we have c ock, d ick, k nob, p rick, tool, all used as insults. There are probably more.
Perhaps the c-word gains its force because it's sort of, more exclusive
I hope that's not true Smaka. That would be very shallow. I have really loved this thread and almost everyone on it. It has been extra ordinary that a thread of such divided opinion and diverse subject has been so friendly , polite and respectful, I. The main, of so many opinions.:D
I have loved the debate.
Do I need to say more benji?
Okay, let's tangent some more and give Smacka something to complain about
curly, to accept the intruder story you have to believe the following…….
The intrusion took place on a high security estate with an almost a crime free record (last home intrusion was 3 years previously).
The intruder just happened to select Pistorius’ house out of the several hundred other houses
The intruder bypassed the obvious entry to the house the broken downstairs window
The intruder then somehow accessed the bathroom window which was obviously shut on the remote chance that it may not be locked on the inside and also the alarm system was not functioning (unlikely in SA)
He then slide the bathroom window open with such force it slammed into the frame making so much noise Pistorius heard it over the noise of the fans
He just happened to do this at exactly the same moment as Reeva decided to go silently to the toilet and Pistorius decided to move some fans.
On Pistorius’ version the bugler then decided to enter the toilet slamming the door behind him.
Do you really believe all these things happened because you have to in order to believe the intruder story?
Point 1 – Burglars do not operate like that. They enter buildings silently. They make sure the alarm system is off. They never ‘trap’ themselves in a building but make sure an exit is clear in case they have to make a quick exit. Finally, they never go into toilets because there is nothing to steal in there!
Point 2 – The odds of an intruder entering a window at exactly the same time as a named person decides to go to the loo are astronomically high.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN – HE LIED
Also yelling at Reeva to call the police ,but Reeva has just traveled his route moments earlier and knows there's no intruder, yet she never calls out? (in OP version) "Hey its me " or "WTF is wrong with you dude"
Seriously?
Btw, I am not calling Moniker or anyone a misogynist for using the word, I am just saying that the offensiveness of the word does link in my view to entrenched (and therefore a little obscured) misogyny in wider terms of language and culture.
We're being berated for these academic debates on swear words and their connotations lol so prob best leave it. It just crossed my mind OP might fit the bill (in a gender-irrelevant & purely emotive sense). lol
However the next time I catch anyone calling him a "bastard" i'm gonna take offense, just so you know. My parents weren't married and I find it humiliating to hear that term used in such a demeaning manner.
Comments
He spoke too quickly, his accent came into play a lot IMO. His double thinking in Africaaans and English was also evident. Not his finest hour for me. But the main thrust of his argument was spot on.
I agree it is considered the worst, partly I think because of the guttural way it sounds too.
I call lots of people twits , and when angry (not to their facces) I might say they were a tw*t - but I have NEVER EVER called anyone the C word- i'd have a problem letting it role off my tongue even, it won't happen.
Me neither. Nel's case is the weakness of OP's evidence and experts. He has a point. It wouldn't be so weak if it was true i'm sure.
Combined with the conviction that the connecting passage, locked door, and 4 bullets without cause' is so very illegal that his version must be rejected (which sounds quite agreeable conclusion but if so what's the point of having all these witnesses?)
I think we wanted something showing how it would all be pulled together to "make sense" of their row and his frantic attempts to cover his tracks after. A narrative.
The lack of a narrative is a consequence of 2 key blunders:
[1] Stumps: Knowing the argument circumstance means 1hr up & probs downstairs
[2] Female screams: Knowing that Mike's wife heard "help help help" around 3:16 same time that Berger/Johnson heard it.
I know people will hate me for saying that but it's true lol ;-)
We did AT LEAST get a narrative in the sense of him shouting "Get the F outta my house" - fleeing with her cell phone - slamming and locking - and presumably him soon thereafter shooting.
But not even a hint of an explanation for the trajectory of A - which looks like an anomaly for intention to kill? I think Roux mentioned something about "He doesn't know if she is seated." in passing. Why not Nel lol? If OP was to "guess blind" what other angle would he pick. A looks like a very good shot when viewed that way.
He's a bit rough and ready is Nel.
He's absolutely spot on about OP's "external locus of control" though and "victim of circumstances". I love those phrases. Maybe Kotze suggested them? Sounds like a psychiatrist finding to me.
He just needed someone to help make the circumstantial reconstructions more realistic IMO. They should have read Digital Spy lol
Me neither and not sure of the relevance to the thread?
Btw, I am not calling Moniker or anyone a misogynist for using the word, I am just saying that the offensiveness of the word does link in my view to entrenched (and therefore a little obscured) misogyny in wider terms of language and culture.
curly, to accept the intruder story you have to believe the following…….
The intrusion took place on a high security estate with an almost a crime free record (last home intrusion was 3 years previously).
The intruder just happened to select Pistorius’ house out of the several hundred other houses
The intruder bypassed the obvious entry to the house the broken downstairs window
The intruder then somehow accessed the bathroom window which was obviously shut on the remote chance that it may not be locked on the inside and also the alarm system was not functioning (unlikely in SA)
He then slide the bathroom window open with such force it slammed into the frame making so much noise Pistorius heard it over the noise of the fans
He just happened to do this at exactly the same moment as Reeva decided to go silently to the toilet and Pistorius decided to move some fans.
On Pistorius’ version the bugler then decided to enter the toilet slamming the door behind him.
Do you really believe all these things happened because you have to in order to believe the intruder story?
Point 1 – Burglars do not operate like that. They enter buildings silently. They make sure the alarm system is off. They never ‘trap’ themselves in a building but make sure an exit is clear in case they have to make a quick exit. Finally, they never go into toilets because there is nothing to steal in there!
Point 2 – The odds of an intruder entering a window at exactly the same time as a named person decides to go to the loo are astronomically high.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN – HE LIED
The relevance was simply to get a dig at smacka.;-);-)
I hope that's not true Smaka. That would be very shallow. I have really loved this thread and almost everyone on it. It has been extra ordinary that a thread of such divided opinion and diverse subject has been so friendly , polite and respectful, I. The main, of so many opinions.:D
I have loved the debate.
lurker
That's why I save it for best. ;-)
Hi Smacka. Hope all's good with you. I digress. It's an occupational hazard. Bear with me
I don't agree lol.
I agree the C word is the least acceptable swear word in current English usage.
However - I disagree that this implies misogyny in its usage. It makes no logical sense to associate the intended targets of the word (usually other aggressive males one does not like) with the source meaning. There is no conceptual connection.
You mentioned the "aggressiveness" of the term - and indicated that's the source of th misogyny? But consider the following: "Prick" is similar. Also W
. Both are far more acceptable but has a very similar meaning (in terms of what you think about someone???). So it's not aggressiveness of usage, that aspect cannot be linked to gender.
The differences in terms of actual "aggression" in uses between C- , W- , P- etc. ... to borrow from Roux lol ... you would have to look through a magnifying glass to see it.
So the aggressiveness has nothing to do with the origin being male or female anatomy (IMO!) ;-)
I think it comes down simply to this: A matter of taste or distaste for a term. I think in fact it is gender neutral in content (the literal meaning is irrelevant to the contexts it is used it) - but it is nevertheless not perceived neutrally by both genders - but that's a different question. Misogyny is an attitude of the thinker/speaker surely - rather than the perceiver???
That's what I took issue with originally lol as I don't think it stands up to scrutiny
45 Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
9 Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
3 Culpable Homicide
2 Acquittal
0 Not Sure
Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him or her.
Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct. An example would be of an assault where a perpetrator gets into a fight and uses a knuckle duster to beat up the victim, not actually intending to kill the victim, and the victim dies.
Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent. The test in determining whether the accused is guilty of this crime lies in the question – “what a reasonable person would have done given the same circumstances?
(for full definitions of above see #5553 or http://whosyourdadic.com/2014/04/09/the-oscar-pistorius-trial-what-did-he-do/
Judgement 11 September (courtesy of bookcover)
http://www.webcountdown.net/?c=1410424200
(courtesy of Jeremy99)
77% Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
15% Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
5% Culpable Homicide
3% Acquittal
The word **** used as a swear word diminished me as a woman and a female.
BIB; yeah they do, -and the female origin swear word is disgusting and perhaps it's just women, but majority I can tell you now would also find it disgusting. This has nothing to do with the trial, - it's rather a conversation stopper. (to be fair^_^)
Another way to look at it is that there are markedly more abusive terms based on male genitals than on female. Apart from the four-letter female word ending in -unt (yeah, you got it, aunt
However, on the boys' side we have c ock, d ick, k nob, p rick, tool, all used as insults. There are probably more.
Perhaps the c-word gains its force because it's sort of, more exclusive
It came from a "choose your favourite expletive to describe the Pistorius clan" game. I can't argue it was ever anything if not shallow
Do I need to say more benji?
Okay, let's tangent some more and give Smacka something to complain about
....gastric emptying?...........................
Corrosive
Conservative
Colluding
Co - dependant.
Also yelling at Reeva to call the police ,but Reeva has just traveled his route moments earlier and knows there's no intruder, yet she never calls out? (in OP version) "Hey its me " or "WTF is wrong with you dude"
Seriously?
Do do get some shi* but sometimes you invite it. You are well liked here .... And you know it
We're being berated for these academic debates on swear words and their connotations lol so prob best leave it. It just crossed my mind OP might fit the bill (in a gender-irrelevant & purely emotive sense). lol
However the next time I catch anyone calling him a "bastard" i'm gonna take offense, just so you know. My parents weren't married and I find it humiliating to hear that term used in such a demeaning manner.