George Hook

@Thirsty introduced the event as a topic relevant to rape and I searched for documentation of it, the one I quoted seemed most cogent.

Naturally what I quoted has little if anything to do with what I believe but what @Thirsty believes. And that seems to be that it was a real event, with God present, who assaulted Mary and had non-consensual sex with her. This would also seem to imply that God is male or at least can take male form, hence @Thirsty's God vs. Mary interjection

The questions, doubts, language issues and other teories are for @Thirsty to answer, not me; I haven't said whether or what I believe. Your questions are more appropriately directed to the poster whose beliefs seem grounded in the document I quoted from.

Next please.
 
Sorry this got missed out for some reason:

As written, in translation, this passage from the Bible consists of God's representative, Gabriel, making his pitch to Mary on his boss's behalf, proving his credentials by referencing Elizabeth's situation, talking up the child Mary will bear if she agrees to be impregnated and at the end Mary gives her consent and then divine impregnation takes place.

That's what's written in the Christian book. @Thirsty has a whole different slant on it founded in violence, which has no evidence and hasn't been substantiated by @Thirsty with one whit of evidence
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
that only goes to underscore that RC culture is much more anti rape than Protestant culture and that has a direct link to the RC devotion to the BVM.
Click to expand...

jeez, I dunno about that. That's a fair tenuous observation, does your average could-be rapist (which is all men going by the usual feminist mantra) weigh up his devotion to BVM and decide against? I think there could be more of a link in the demographic make up of Sweden.....I don't really want to go further in spelling that out, as I could be getting myself offside with the PC brigade (even if I wasn't interfering with play), but as wild unsubstantiated theories go if you put a gun to my head I'd go for that one above the BVM one......
 
Betsy Og said:
That's a fair tenuous observation, does your average could-be rapist (which is all men going by the usual feminist mantra) weigh up his devotion to BVM and decide against?
Click to expand...
Oh no, I'm not suggesting that. I'm talking about the overall culture - if it is squeamish about consensual activity within marriage, and reverence of the Virgin birth suggests that it is (it certainly was but I guess things have changed), then how much more repugnant should it find rape.

I must admit I was surprised by just how high the Sweden figure was, please go further in spelling out what you think is at play here
 
I think you already know what I'm talking about with the hint "demographics". You might recall the furore in Germany (Munich was it?) about the recently arrived Syrians and their culture vis a vis women. So that was my scurrilous insinuation. Now....I'd like a gallows with a view.....
 
And they certainly were not influenced by doctrines on the Virgin birth
 

It wasn't Munich and while some of the perpetrators may have been Syrian, most were not. If you are heading to the gallows, may as well get your facts straight.
 
Mr Hook said: "But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room?

"She's only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.

"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?

"You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her.

"There is personal responsibility because it's your daughter and my daughter."

Just going to leave those words here to speak for themselves.
 
cremeegg said:
It wasn't Munich and while some of the perpetrators may have been Syrian, most were not. If you are heading to the gallows, may as well get your facts straight.
Click to expand...
Ok, you win Pedantic Pat award of the day, my point (which everyone got) was that they were not of christian persuasion. So if you want to explore religions with twisted attitudes to women I think you'll find far more fertile ground there.
 
Vanilla said:
"But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, George was sticking his oafish foot in his enormous gob. But dare I say that that's hardly a newsflash. The hysteria about "rape culture" and vilification of him what should be long retired is very OTT. George does not represent Irish men on most topics, so let's not read too much into what his words say about Irish society.
 
Yesterday, a colleague of George's announced she wouldn't present her weekend show if he was still at the station.
And 1 researcher on his team was moved to a different show after requesting the move.
George has been suspended this morning pending conclusion of the review by Mgmt.
 
George seems to think of himself as too old to give a damn, and probably thinks that makes him "outspoken", endearing, a clear clarion call in the morass of PC (or some other bombastic pompous notion). It's a skill to know when to go, I used to listen to George and overall used to like him, so it'll be a sorry end if he gets "bundled into the back of van", but he should have hung up his headphones a year ago when he left drivetime. Now, when you look up "Loose cannon on deck", there's just a picture of George....
 
I never liked him but other than that I agree.
 
Dan Murray said:
Some people might believe this to be over the top but George must ask himself should he have put himself in harm's way?!
Click to expand...
I wonder how many times he was told by his bosses to be controversial, speak his mind!
But this is one topic he should have steered well clear of...you're on a hiding to nothing if you don't go with the consenus viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. So leave well alone
 

The whole controversy started when Chris Donoghue his newstalk colleague tweeted that his (George Hooks) comments were disgusting. Chris Donoghue was basically demoted from the drivetime show after only a year, the show which George Hook had anchored since newstalk started in 2004. I think alot of the newbie pc types in newstalk were jealous of George Hook and the following he had. I think they were especially put out when Ivan Yates was brought in to replace Chris Donoghue and Sarah McInerney. I think they saw this as an opportunity to take out George Hook, they are now waiting in the long grass for Ivan Yates. These machinations are like something out of soviet russia.
 
Reactions: PMU
I'm feeling really sorry for George Hook and was really sad to see him suspended from his job. As far as I'm concerned he apologised sincerely and that's the end of it. Put him back on air - he doesn't deserve to be fired. I love his radio show and only listen to it because of him. Part of his charm is his outspoken way - he says things out straight. What he said regarding going to bed with someone on the same night as you meet them is what many people would say - rightly or wrongly. What harm in bringing up the notion of personal responsibility - all people, but especially women ( who are not as well able to defend themselves as men) need to be aware of what they're doing / where they are. I know that I always have the car lock on now when in traffic after hearing one or two horror stories. He called the rapist a scumbag which he is and he should be punished. George doe NOT condone rape but the way people are hopping on the 'anti George' bandwagon you would think he did. It seems like every second person is anti him - perhaps they were only waiting for an opportunity. Please Newstalk put him back on.
 
Working off a phone so may have some typos.

To try and answer some posts.

I have as much belief in the 'New' Testament, (or the Old one for that matter), Supreme Beings, miracles etc., as I do in the tooth fairy.

In my view you might just as well claim the Lord of the Rings to be a true and accurate reflection of historical events and that Gandalf is the Supreme Being as he clearly died and was resuurected.

The regrettable fact is however, that for thr last 20 or so centuries these religious writings have exerted an enormous, and in my view evil, influence on our society.

The subjugation of women, justification for slavery, attitudes towards sexual orientation etc., have their roots in this influence. And this has been documented and researched elsewhere by many others far more qualifed than I.

The reading of what is called the Annunciation as being consent between equals is, in my view, impossible.

With any work of fiction, it is open to the reader to interpret the characters and plot therein; my view of this story is no less valid than any other view.

The novel, a Handmaids Tale, is a work of fiction, but every act depicted therein has happened to women in the past and regretably is still happening in many parts of the world. The primary female character takes part in a regular ritual of sex with the Commander. Although she appears to consent, it is clearly rape since to refuse means punishment or death.

Someone referenced murders as another heinous crime; however I've yet to see anyone blame the murdered person for wearing the wrong clothes, or being in the wrong street after dark, or having too much to drink. And I've never heard it being offered as mitigation for the murderer's crime.
 
Last edited:
Thirsty you have made the mistake of regarding the lack of consent as the heinous crime. Furthermore you argue that what might appear to be consent is in fact illusory as there are implicit influences which give no real alternative.

The reality is that an awful lot of what we do is done on the basis of a consent where we would much prefer to be doing something else - in fact most people's working lives fits this description.

In the context of rape lack of consent is a test just as in the context of murder premeditation is a test - doesn't mean premeditation of itself is a heinous crime.

So let us accept your argument that the BVM effectively had no choice but to agree, that does not in anyway imply she was raped.

I shouldn't really be engaging with you on this matter as it is undoubtedly a TROLL.
 
Last edited:
"...had no choicebut to agree, that does not in anyway imply she was raped."

In the context of rape, consent is the only test, and the only defence.

Consent under duress is not consent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register