Are you understanding what FashionThin is saying?
"Because statistics" is a terrible argument by itself, especially without proof based on the evidence of her case to back it up.
Amber Heard
- Thread starter Allie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- johnny depp
Are you understanding what FashionThin is saying?
"Because statistics" is a terrible argument by itself, especially without proof based on the evidence of her case to back it up.
Look I feel as if this thing with Amber Heard and Johnny Depp is not worth arguing about. We'll never have the full story, the extent to which things happened, and the case has been settled. Personally I do believe Amber Heard, and also feel that people saying things like "this isn't how abuse victims behave" is utter, utter bullshit. So she was partying the next day after the alleged attack. So fucking what? I'd be partying too and trying to have a good time. Did you expect her to be crying under a table for weeks and wearing all black? No.
I do also believe that BOTH Amber Heard and Johnny Depp are the kind of people that would perpetuate or egg each other on when they are having an argument (It doesn't excuse what he did, and let me be clear this is NOT victim blaming)
Anyhow, no matter what her intentions in giving away the settlement money were, the issue of domestic violence is back on people's minds, and no doubt the millions she has donated will come of good use.
I do also believe that BOTH Amber Heard and Johnny Depp are the kind of people that would perpetuate or egg each other on when they are having an argument (It doesn't excuse what he did, and let me be clear this is NOT victim blaming)
Anyhow, no matter what her intentions in giving away the settlement money were, the issue of domestic violence is back on people's minds, and no doubt the millions she has donated will come of good use.
Glad the money is going where she implied it was.
Otherwise this is a case that is unresolved because nothing has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by either side, which I think is why some people here are unwilling to take the view that he's a wife beater. It's unsatisfactory but that's how it's been left.
@bingeonvogue Disraeli always springs to mind here 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'
Otherwise this is a case that is unresolved because nothing has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by either side, which I think is why some people here are unwilling to take the view that he's a wife beater. It's unsatisfactory but that's how it's been left.
@bingeonvogue Disraeli always springs to mind here 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'
I thought the same thing - but perhaps her team thought she wouldn't get the $$$ she wanted from the court or the pity she wanted from the public without claiming abuse.
This is your best point.
I personally don't accuse every woman of lying. I think she's in that minority that's exaggerating at best and fabricating at worst.
If she was telling the truth, then she took a 7mil settlement instead of battling him and putting a wife-beater in jail. Not really a hero in my books.
If you compare this case the the Rihanna vs. Chris Brown, it's interesting, especially the part where neighbors hear fighting (AH vs. JD: no confirmation of abuse by neighbors or friends), the cops show up and *confirm* the indication of 'disturbance' (A vs JD: police arrive and find nothing but leave a business card), and her busted up pictures are taken by the police (A vs. JD: not a personal selfie) and then the aggressor was arrested and CHARGED. I would never victim blame Rihanna by saying "oh she's probably really annoying or slutty and deserved/provoked it--that's what victim-blaming really means not just assuming all women are honest little angels and men are aggressive apes (talk about cis-gendered). If you want a man to hate, hate Chris Brown. Don't listen to his music. Ever. But we've forgiven him, haven't we? Third-wave Vox readers are so intellectually lazy and self-congratulatory. If you want to fight for women, hows abouts you read the Qu'ran and help those ladies out on the ground level? What about the domestic/child abuse cultural norms in low income ses arenas. Nah, that would be hard and those people are scary. This isn't about helping others or society, it's about virtue-signalling.
And that's bullshit.
If you compare this case the the Rihanna vs. Chris Brown, it's interesting, especially the part where neighbors hear fighting (AH vs. JD: no confirmation of abuse by neighbors or friends), the cops show up and *confirm* the indication of 'disturbance' (A vs JD: police arrive and find nothing but leave a business card), and her busted up pictures are taken by the police (A vs. JD: not a personal selfie) and then the aggressor was arrested and CHARGED. I would never victim blame Rihanna by saying "oh she's probably really annoying or slutty and deserved/provoked it--that's what victim-blaming really means not just assuming all women are honest little angels and men are aggressive apes (talk about cis-gendered). If you want a man to hate, hate Chris Brown. Don't listen to his music. Ever. But we've forgiven him, haven't we? Third-wave Vox readers are so intellectually lazy and self-congratulatory. If you want to fight for women, hows abouts you read the Qu'ran and help those ladies out on the ground level? What about the domestic/child abuse cultural norms in low income ses arenas. Nah, that would be hard and those people are scary. This isn't about helping others or society, it's about virtue-signalling.
And that's bullshit.
I have never heard this term before but holy fuck is it relevant to the faux-offended bitches I find everywhere in NYC, constantly on the prowl for perceived microaggressive slights. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.
First time I've felt bad for Cara in awhile. Poor girl might be Amber's next conquest.
I did a paper on this last year. There is a lot of good research that says it's even higher than that. Also keep in mind "proven false" is a high standard, and by definition smaller than the total % of false accusations.
But how do you integrate the statistics on how many legitimate assaults actually get reported? I don't mean this as a front, but I'd think it'd be more important to prioritize getting victims to come forward instead of shitting on the assholes who cry wolf.
My interpretation is that if the media makes a habit of hanging the liars out to dry, victims will be discouraged from coming forward. Because what if you can't prove it? Or you aren't sure if you could? Or you've simply been through enough that you don't want to face the possibility at all?
I agree we should create a society where crimes are openly reported and victims should feel protected. But in this case, it's not just as innocent as "crying wolf." The accused will suffer police interrogation, their reputation damaged, psychological effects from doubts of family and friends. These are all adequate consequences if they committed a crime. Yet to allow this abuse freely is creating another class of victims.
I don't have any statistics or studies about the effect on people who have been falsely accused. I'd just imagine it would be horrid.
As @FashionThin said, we need to have both. Rape should be consider a shameful act but so should falsely slandering someone.
I can recommend the movie "The Hunt" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2106476/) it deals with a man who was falsely accused and gets his life ruined as a result.
I think it shows pretty well what happens to people who are falsely accused, and that the doubt never goes away from the people around him.
Not accusing her of outright lying... but her story and actions don't stack up. What happened before is speculation, what happened after the divorce was filed were documented facts. No one is denying that JD has some serious issues. But to confound violence against objects and violence against persons is not okay. Amber hasn't shown sufficient evidence in the court of law. The "evidence" she has shown has almost all been leaked to media. This is not how any person filing a legit lawsuit should behave. Even if I wanted to believe her... at this point, it's very difficult.
Showed up for her disposition, not lied about the police documentation, not leaked 'evidence' to the media... it's really hard to believe that there is so much evidence defending Johnny and so little against him. Usually the public is the first to jump on the female's side** (aka as shown by Chris Brown vs Rihanna in 2009 - but there was no doubt here that abuse occurred).
**while being very very forgiving of the male, which is a bigger issue..
Edit: once again I'm super late and @Artemis has covered all this
Last edited:
Now she's pissed because he's giving the money directly to the charities instead of giving it to her.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...epp-charity-donation-20160825-snap-story.html
If she really had planned to give it all to them, then why does she care? Oh I know, because she wasn't really going to.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...epp-charity-donation-20160825-snap-story.html
If she really had planned to give it all to them, then why does she care? Oh I know, because she wasn't really going to.
Now she's pissed because he's giving the money directly to the charities instead of giving it to her.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...epp-charity-donation-20160825-snap-story.html
If she really had planned to give it all to them, then why does she care? Oh I know, because she wasn't really going to.
Or because she wanted the tax rebate for herself. That is a LOT of money that Depp will now get instead of Heard.
Honestly, disregarding the whole he said - she said, he did - she did clusterfuck this case is: he agreed to a 7 milion settlement, to be paid to Heard.
By donating the money directly, he gets a giant tax rebate of several million dollars. If he gives the money to Heard, and she donates all of it to charity, she gets a giant tax rebate (and she will recieve the settlement tax free, as it is the result of the end of a marriage). So she stands to loose potentially several million by him donating directly, even if she were to donate the full 7 million.
Depp on the other hand, stands to gain several million by donating directly, drastically reducing his settlement. Please don't say it doesn't matter who donates, there are several million in tax rebates involved in this whole mess. That's a lot of money.
No matter who you believe in this whole mess, the bottom line is that they agreed on a settlement that was supposed to be paid out to Heard. Depp paying the money out directly to the charities will cost her (potentially) several million, and gain him (potentially) millions.
There is no way Depp isn't doing this on purpose as a huge middle finger to Heard. He knows exactly what he's doing. You can speculate away om whether he is being malicious or whether he wanted to draw public attention to the fact that she stands to gain a considerable amount of money even if she does donate the full 7 million to charity (my bet is on both), but please don't say it doesn't matter who pays out where and to whom.
I don't think that's right. In the US people don't get tax rebates for donating to charity. They just shrink the income they have to pay taxes on. And she doesn't have much income so I don't get how she's missing out on much.
Who is an accountant here?
@Alpha Bullcock will know this.
My apologies. Rebate was the wrong word. I meant tax break (I was translating in my head, didn't realize those two things are different).
Still, I did a quick charity tax calculation, and Depp stand to get at least 2.7 million back on his taxes if he makes the donations himself. That's a lot of money, and it severly diminishes his out-of-pocket expense. Honestly, I'd be pissed too if I was her.
Heard doesn't have a big enough income to get that much, but she still stands to gain back all the taxes she paid this year. In addition to that, she could do what Depp is currently doing, which is pay the donations in installments, to get tax refunds for years to come. It would be difficult to critizise her for doing that since that is what Depp is currently doing. The smarter PR move on his part would have been to give her the money, then go to the media about how she didn't pay it all out in one go.
I'd love to hear from someone who knows more about american taxes though. I've tried to find calculations on how much each of them stand to gain/loose, but I'm coming up blank. Heards camp is insisting that Depp should pay out 14 million to charities instead of 7 million, because it will amount to the same out-of-pocket expense for him due to the tax breaks he will recieve, but that sounds high to me. Could someone please explain?