Lauren Southern speaks to Feminists at "SlutWalk".

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

So what? It had already been filmed. They spoke their piece and the interviewer walked off.

So you should read for context duh

That context doesn't matter is irrelevant. Interview was done.

You asked 'so what?' Please don't pretend to want to know why I said something if you can't be bothered to read the thread for context.

Your little political axe grinding has you off track

I think you're projecting. I saw the context you brought up, I don't think it's relevant. Mostly because it isn't. The interview was done and recorded. People parted ways.

And that has to do with fog's comparison how again? I think you forgot about that in your rush to grind that axe

You and your projecting. Why does it matter if the video hasn't aired?

It should be evident if you paid attention to how I started in the conversation

I saw you say that it's important, but I don't find your explanation convincing.

Considering I never explained it it seems you must not be reading my posts.

I also see no reason to bother to explain it to someone who has no interest in paying attention

Well if you're not here to do anything other than splatter words on a server, that's your prerogative. I suppose it's my mistake in guessing that you were speaking (typing?) with some purpose.

There is a purpose. I just see no need to explain it when it should be obvious enough by the post I replied to first.

I mean I'm not gonna pretend I don't know about your posting habits and how you'll ignore the obvious just to argue.

Mayhaps it's not as obvious as you think it is? Maybe you're using your preconceived notions to try and shut down a conversation? Talk about axe grinding...

 

[FogHornG36]

snip

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

So what? It had already been filmed. They spoke their piece and the interviewer walked off.

So you should read for context duh

That context doesn't matter is irrelevant. Interview was done.

You asked 'so what?' Please don't pretend to want to know why I said something if you can't be bothered to read the thread for context.

Your little political axe grinding has you off track

I think you're projecting. I saw the context you brought up, I don't think it's relevant. Mostly because it isn't. The interview was done and recorded. People parted ways.

And that has to do with fog's comparison how again? I think you forgot about that in your rush to grind that axe

You and your projecting. Why does it matter if the video hasn't aired?

It should be evident if you paid attention to how I started in the conversation

I saw you say that it's important, but I don't find your explanation convincing.

Considering I never explained it it seems you must not be reading my posts.

I also see no reason to bother to explain it to someone who has no interest in paying attention

Well if you're not here to do anything other than splatter words on a server, that's your prerogative. I suppose it's my mistake in guessing that you were speaking (typing?) with some purpose.

There is a purpose. I just see no need to explain it when it should be obvious enough by the post I replied to first.

I mean I'm not gonna pretend I don't know about your posting habits and how you'll ignore the obvious just to argue.

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

And that you can stop filming right then.

you are right, they should just dump the camera in the trash and walk off forgetting the fact that the reason why why shown up was to do this exact thing, debate the feminists.

They got consent, and feminists freely talked to them. They are not going to just scrap the video and call the entire day a wash because the feminists suddenly had a case of the feelings, and tried to stop them because they don't want to look dumb.

What do you expect them to do?

Well I expect you to be more honest about your comparison but that would be caving to the evil femin ist and they might take over the world so I couldn't expect that

Black girl in the video made the comparison when she brought up the irony of the situation.

I'm not going to do the mental gymnastics that you do to convince yourself that taking back consent that you have freely given to be on camera and to talk Lauren, is the same as taking back consent to sex DURING sex. Its intellectually dishonest.

Now can someone give me my special Olympics "win an argument on the internet" achievement badge.

You suggested it was the same as taking it back after and that she must support thay. That's the intellectually dishonest bit.

All I did was point out the blatantly obvious other way she could have meant it.

Foghorn you are the winner

No, i know that is what she meant, that is why when she was confronted with it, she chose to attack Lauren instead of attacking what she was saying.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

So what? It had already been filmed. They spoke their piece and the interviewer walked off.

So you should read for context duh

That context doesn't matter is irrelevant. Interview was done.

You asked 'so what?' Please don't pretend to want to know why I said something if you can't be bothered to read the thread for context.

Your little political axe grinding has you off track

I think you're projecting. I saw the context you brought up, I don't think it's relevant. Mostly because it isn't. The interview was done and recorded. People parted ways.

And that has to do with fog's comparison how again? I think you forgot about that in your rush to grind that axe

You and your projecting. Why does it matter if the video hasn't aired?

It should be evident if you paid attention to how I started in the conversation

I saw you say that it's important, but I don't find your explanation convincing.

Considering I never explained it it seems you must not be reading my posts.

I also see no reason to bother to explain it to someone who has no interest in paying attention

Well if you're not here to do anything other than splatter words on a server, that's your prerogative. I suppose it's my mistake in guessing that you were speaking (typing?) with some purpose.

There is a purpose. I just see no need to explain it when it should be obvious enough by the post I replied to first.

I mean I'm not gonna pretend I don't know about your posting habits and how you'll ignore the obvious just to argue.

Mayhaps it's not as obvious as you think it is? Maybe you're using your preconceived notions to try and shut down a conversation? Talk about axe grinding...

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

So what? It had already been filmed. They spoke their piece and the interviewer walked off.

So you should read for context duh

That context doesn't matter is irrelevant. Interview was done.

You asked 'so what?' Please don't pretend to want to know why I said something if you can't be bothered to read the thread for context.

Your little political axe grinding has you off track

I think you're projecting. I saw the context you brought up, I don't think it's relevant. Mostly because it isn't. The interview was done and recorded. People parted ways.

And that has to do with fog's comparison how again? I think you forgot about that in your rush to grind that axe

You and your projecting. Why does it matter if the video hasn't aired?

It should be evident if you paid attention to how I started in the conversation

I saw you say that it's important, but I don't find your explanation convincing.

Considering I never explained it it seems you must not be reading my posts.

I also see no reason to bother to explain it to someone who has no interest in paying attention

Well if you're not here to do anything other than splatter words on a server, that's your prerogative. I suppose it's my mistake in guessing that you were speaking (typing?) with some purpose.

There is a purpose. I just see no need to explain it when it should be obvious enough by the post I replied to first.

I mean I'm not gonna pretend I don't know about your posting habits and how you'll ignore the obvious just to argue.

Except the film has yet to be used. Funny that you ignore they can still stop and not use it. But really expected you'd ignore it

And that you can stop filming right then.

you are right, they should just dump the camera in the trash and walk off forgetting the fact that the reason why why shown up was to do this exact thing, debate the feminists.

They got consent, and feminists freely talked to them. They are not going to just scrap the video and call the entire day a wash because the feminists suddenly had a case of the feelings, and tried to stop them because they don't want to look dumb.

What do you expect them to do?

Well I expect you to be more honest about your comparison but that would be caving to the evil femin ist and they might take over the world so I couldn't expect that

Black girl in the video made the comparison when she brought up the irony of the situation.

I'm not going to do the mental gymnastics that you do to convince yourself that taking back consent that you have freely given to be on camera and to talk Lauren, is the same as taking back consent to sex DURING sex. Its intellectually dishonest.

Now can someone give me my special Olympics "win an argument on the internet" achievement badge.

You suggested it was the same as taking it back after and that she must support thay. That's the intellectually dishonest bit.

All I did was point out the blatantly obvious other way she could have meant it.

Foghorn you are the winner

No, i know that is what she meant, that is why when she was confronted with it, she chose to attack Lauren instead of attacking what she was saying.

Ah yes you knew the true meaning! As evidenced by... well nothing except searching for the least charitable interpretation that doesn't really happen outside of the minds of certain paranoid corners of the Internet.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Really you can't seem to get a handle on the fact it isn't whether consent can be withdrawn or not in regards to recording. It isnt.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

I wasn't aware the idea that you can take back consent after the fact was a feminist idea.

I mean, to imply that being against that is "Grinding an anti-feminism axe" implies the idea of part of feminism to begin with, doesn't it?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

I wasn't aware the idea that you can take back consent after the fact was a feminist idea.

I mean, to imply that being against that is "Grinding an anti-feminism axe" implies the idea of part of feminism to begin with, doesn't it?

I wonder if this is genuine or you being your usual self on these issues.

On the off chance it's genuine, the argument is not for or against that idea. It is whether that idea was even proposed by the woman in the video.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

But you were making your point within the context of publishing the video. If that's not what you're arguing, then your comparison you made earlier on doesn't work.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

But you were making your point within the context of publishing the video. If that's not what you're arguing, then your comparison you made earlier on doesn't work.

Yes, I was pointing out it was not the same as removing consent after sex since it can still be stopped . That is it. You do get that is not saying that it is valid to compare consent in regards to sex with consent in regards to a video, yes? You seem stuck on the idea that I was somehow commenting on whether they could publish it or not.

I never said it was a good comparison. Just more sensible than fog's bullshit interpetation

 

[Namehere]

The Rebel will not be getting regular views from me. It is one thing to cover an event and to interview the people attending. It is quite another to attempt to do this at a protest whilst protesting the protest. This is bias journalism.

With that said, I'm incline to concur that Canadian society in general is not harboring a 'rape culture.' Were we to catch a rapist I sincerely doubt the man/woman would go before the courts with the defense of: 'He/She deserved it because of their behavior/clothing or the hour and location they were raped at.' This is in fact a statement made by a man who was convicted of rape in India and sentenced to death - his victim died of her rape. Another of his lovely statements after conviction was: 'Well... we wouldn't have killed her if she hadn't resisted.' Which is to say: 'We wouldn't have raped her to death...' etc... This is a rape culture. At least to my mind. When a rapist feels 'morally' justified you've found rape culture. Rapists in North America, at least the US and Canada, hide. They do not come forward as champions of their society and its morals.

I also find it comical that someone actually had the lack of common sense and the balls to boot to ask, on someone else's behalf no less, that an interview not be aired. I can't think of a time such a request would be met with anything but a blank look of disbelief from a reporter. This is admittedly a bullshit reporter, but to even ask was ridiculous.

Imagine if a public figure were interviewed and said something less then at post or even patently stupid - but for whatever reason said it - then asked the reporter to edit around it or can the whole interview? It AIN'T gonna happen. So to call the reporters behavior childish was itself childish. If only this shit was actually funny...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

But you were making your point within the context of publishing the video. If that's not what you're arguing, then your comparison you made earlier on doesn't work.

Yes, I was pointing out it was not the same as removing consent after sex since it can still be stopped . That is it. You do get that is not saying that it is valid to compare consent in regards to sex with consent in regards to a video, yes? You seem stuck on the idea that I was somehow commenting on whether they could publish it or not.

snip

snap

1. That was a weird cut at the end. One that looked as though the black woman was going to continue to talk.

2.You do realize what that black woman could have meant, right? Withdrawing consent from sex while having it? Or even just withdrawing consent prior to the act while initially saying "yes"?

NOOOOOO You don't get to reinterpret what she said to make you feel better, the black chick was saying, isn't it ironic that you are not letting them take back consent after the fact?: when talking about being on camera, The irony is based on the feminist idea that woman should be able to take bake consent after sex.

It doesn't work your way because the filming is already done.

I think it's terrible you don't think women can take back consent during sex. It was still being filmed. Also it wasn't shown to anyone yet. So not a past event! Really, you shouldn't support not being able to stop giving consent.

If that's what you were saying, you weren't at all clear on it.

 

[Namehere]

snip

snap

1. That was a weird cut at the end. One that looked as though the black woman was going to continue to talk.

2.You do realize what that black woman could have meant, right? Withdrawing consent from sex while having it? Or even just withdrawing consent prior to the act while initially saying "yes"?

NOOOOOO You don't get to reinterpret what she said to make you feel better, the black chick was saying, isn't it ironic that you are not letting them take back consent after the fact?: when talking about being on camera, The irony is based on the feminist idea that woman should be able to take bake consent after sex.

It doesn't work your way because the filming is already done.

I think it's terrible you don't think women can take back consent during sex. It was still being filmed. Also it wasn't shown to anyone yet. So not a past event! Really, you shouldn't support not being able to stop giving consent.

If that was the issue a simple statement of: 'No further comment' and then walking away normally does the trick. I was under the impression the interview was already recorded and they didn't want it aired. That is an entirely different matter.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

But you were making your point within the context of publishing the video. If that's not what you're arguing, then your comparison you made earlier on doesn't work.

Yes, I was pointing out it was not the same as removing consent after sex since it can still be stopped . That is it. You do get that is not saying that it is valid to compare consent in regards to sex with consent in regards to a video, yes? You seem stuck on the idea that I was somehow commenting on whether they could publish it or not.

snip

snap

1. That was a weird cut at the end. One that looked as though the black woman was going to continue to talk.

2.You do realize what that black woman could have meant, right? Withdrawing consent from sex while having it? Or even just withdrawing consent prior to the act while initially saying "yes"?

NOOOOOO You don't get to reinterpret what she said to make you feel better, the black chick was saying, isn't it ironic that you are not letting them take back consent after the fact?: when talking about being on camera, The irony is based on the feminist idea that woman should be able to take bake consent after sex.

It doesn't work your way because the filming is already done.

I think it's terrible you don't think women can take back consent during sex. It was still being filmed. Also it wasn't shown to anyone yet. So not a past event! Really, you shouldn't support not being able to stop giving consent.

If that's what you were saying, you weren't at all clear on it.

Do you really not catch the sarcasm in the accusation from the very start? And somehow miss the mention of sex?

The middle bit was establishing that it was not the same as removing consent after as it was not a past event, unlike removing consent after sex would be.

And do you not even bother to read his post? Reinterpret what she said and all that? Clearly about whether the video can be used. Or look at what Skatologist said with 2. Does it look like anyone cares about the interview so much as the stupid comparison to withdrawing consent after sex is over?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

snap

1. That was a weird cut at the end. One that looked as though the black woman was going to continue to talk.

2.You do realize what that black woman could have meant, right? Withdrawing consent from sex while having it? Or even just withdrawing consent prior to the act while initially saying "yes"?

NOOOOOO You don't get to reinterpret what she said to make you feel better, the black chick was saying, isn't it ironic that you are not letting them take back consent after the fact?: when talking about being on camera, The irony is based on the feminist idea that woman should be able to take bake consent after sex.

It doesn't work your way because the filming is already done.

I think it's terrible you don't think women can take back consent during sex. It was still being filmed. Also it wasn't shown to anyone yet. So not a past event! Really, you shouldn't support not being able to stop giving consent.

If that was the issue a simple statement of: 'No further comment' and then walking away normally does the trick. I was under the impression the interview was already recorded and they didn't want it aired. That is an entirely different matter.

... is this on purpose or did you not use read the past page?

I'm displeased with his absurd insistence on comparing it to removing consent after sex, suggesting that it is what she meant, and his lie that it is a feminist idea.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

From your first post it was pretty clear you missed the entire point. If it hadn't missed by so many miles as each subsequent reply did I'd have answered more. I don't care for posts that show no effort in telling what the conversation was about. The past just makes it easier to confirm the initial judgement

Hint: it was about his stupid comparison

Oh, so it was about exactly what it looked like, you had me worried that your argument wasn't what it looked like. First off, it's not his comparison, it was the woman's comparison from the video. Fog is saying the recording has already been done, it's after the fact. You were saying that it was ongoing since the video hadn't been published yet. I'm agreeing with Fog, the recording was already done, you don't get to just withdraw the consent you gave.

Yes she totally clearly meant you can take back consent after sex too.

Grind that antifeminism axe harder

Notice I'm not commenting on sex. Just pointing out it was her comparison and agreeing that Lauren doesn't have to cut the interview if she doesn't want to. But keep projecting your feminism axe grinding harder.

Notice that I am commenting on fog's comparison in regards to sex. How the fuck do you not notice that from the start?

I never said she had to cut it. I am taking issue with him saying it is like withdrawing consent after sex. It is not. It's just that unlike sex they don't have to listen here. That does not make his sex comparison, the only fucking issue I was dealing with, actually any good

And you're making your point in the context of the film interview. If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other. But it looks like you're saying that since the film hadn't been published yet, the act was still ongoing (thus linking it to withdrawing consent during sex). I was just saying that the interview was done, they could publish it at their discretion.

It is aggravating I actually have to explain this with everything viewable in this thread...

He is denying that she was intending the comparison to be the same as removing consent during sex. He insists on it being the 'feminist' idea of removing consent after sex (something he made up). I am saying that it is pretty clearly possible to interpret her comparison in a much more sensible way.

This never had anything to do with whether she could or could not publish the damn content. I never said there was a reason she could not. You have been imagining motives on my behalf that never existed

But you were making your point within the context of publishing the video. If that's not what you're arguing, then your comparison you made earlier on doesn't work.

Yes, I was pointing out it was not the same as removing consent after sex since it can still be stopped . That is it. You do get that is not saying that it is valid to compare consent in regards to sex with consent in regards to a video, yes? You seem stuck on the idea that I was somehow commenting on whether they could publish it or not.

snip

snap

1. That was a weird cut at the end. One that looked as though the black woman was going to continue to talk.

2.You do realize what that black woman could have meant, right? Withdrawing consent from sex while having it? Or even just withdrawing consent prior to the act while initially saying "yes"?

NOOOOOO You don't get to reinterpret what she said to make you feel better, the black chick was saying, isn't it ironic that you are not letting them take back consent after the fact?: when talking about being on camera, The irony is based on the feminist idea that woman should be able to take bake consent after sex.

It doesn't work your way because the filming is already done.

I think it's terrible you don't think women can take back consent during sex. It was still being filmed. Also it wasn't shown to anyone yet. So not a past event! Really, you shouldn't support not being able to stop giving consent.

If that's what you were saying, you weren't at all clear on it.

Do you really not catch the sarcasm in the accusation from the very start? And somehow miss the mention of sex?

The middle bit was establishing that it was not the same as removing consent after as it was not a past event, unlike removing consent after sex would be.

And do you not even bother to read his post? Reinterpret what she said and all that? Clearly about whether the video can be used. Or look at what Skatologist said with 2. Does it look like anyone cares about the interview so much as the stupid comparison to withdrawing consent after sex is over?

If someone was sarcastic I blame Internet. Otherwise I'm not seeing any problems with what I'm saying or where this conversation flowed.