Lehrmann defamation trial judgement today

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

rubbish. Men like to think they are more rational but the link between testosterone and cortisol simply produces different manifestations of emotion. In addition men are socialised to believe that displays of certain emotions are unmanly.

that women display emotion simply does not mean they are more emotional. But they may well be more capable of empathy. That may be partly hormonal and partly conditioning however

maybe the latter since you are complaining about tte behaviour of modern women. Maybe they are casting off Millenia of conditioning and the burden of childhood that tied them to certain social expectations, roles and behaviours. Maybe they are becoming tougher and more callous. Sort of like men have been And now that you are seeing these behaviours you don’t like them. Maybe therefore if you weren’t so determined to support men you could see it’s really male behaviour you don’t much like

as to what I presume sits alongside your contention about men - that you are rational and not prone to emotion - your behaviour suggests that you filter -heavily - according to the extent to which you have a predisposition to believe certain things. That’s normal and can result in someone believing they are rational. But it does not mean they are

do I need to explain the psychological aspect to you - or even what neuroscience has to say on the matter?

I am sure it’s hard to accept and possibly harder if you see yourself as polite and reasoned. But take a look at your unsubstantiated claims in this thread alone. You suffer from a lack of intellectual and possibly behavioural flexibility.

but putting aside that let me check whether i understand
you sound like a man of habit - maybe who doesn’t much like change unless it is a change you have sought, You see yourself as thoughtful a intelligent as well as rational. You may be sensitive at some level - finding criticism difficult and requiring a response. You were smart as a child and a bit different from others. What else have I missed?

Expand

Some substantiation of my so-called unsubstantiated claims>

I put it to you that Bruce may have been a mark. A mark in terms of a patsy by a woman to use the current legal system and political correctness that results in huge payments for sex scandals that she has seen occur several times over and thus her texts on requiring a sex scandal only weeks before the events in question. Add to this no doctors' proofs in actual fact when such was claimed initially to get the legal and press things moving.

More rubbish you say.... and fantasy on my part... that woman could be so callous and scheming as to chase big $$ using false allegations within the current legal system and current political correctness simping? Here you go from Melanie who can indeed be very rational >

And note that the felony fraud charge is very much the exception and men without the famous baseballers resources simply cannot fight such false allegations.

Bruce was known to ply woman with alcohol and try it on. He fits the profile of a patsy perfectly. He would have zero chance with a woman of quality.