LogFAQs > #881998539

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	This Kid got PUNCHED in the FACE by a GIRL because he took a SELFIE with her!!!
Zeus 06/28/17 10:28:21 PM #51:	wwinterj25 posted... In the sense that you're doing something without permission from the other person yeah. I thought my point was clear enough. lolwut? Even overlooking that the two aren't remotely comparable, nothing he did required her permission. He has every legal right to take a photo in public, nor is it morally wrong to do so. You'd have to get all the way down to social wrong which, besides being arbitrary, is scraping the bottom of the barrel. wwinterj25 posted... It would be a crime regardless would it not? So that makes no sense. If he had physically jumped in front of her and was suddenly less than half an arm's length away, she could argue that she was acting in self-defense because she didn't know what he was doing. AllstarSniper32 posted... wwinterj25 posted... LeetCheet posted... You'd think a pornstar of all things wouldn't give a fuck if someone took their picture. Considering they have done lots of nasty shit in front of a camera on the Internet for money for years. That's like saying a porn star shouldn't mind getting raped as she's had lots of sex over the years. Without permission you don't invite yourself. I gotta agree with this. You mean you agree that rape is bad or that you agree taking a photo is comparable to rape? Because nobody is disputing the first whereas anybody with any sense would reject the second. After all, rape is a crime... just like assault. You know what's not a crime, though? Taking a person's photo in a public area. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:881998539] in This Kid g... [t:75508247]...</cite> <quote><cite>wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote>In the sense that you're doing something without permission from the other person yeah. I thought my point was clear enough. </quote> lolwut? Even overlooking that the two aren't remotely comparable, nothing he did required her permission. He has every legal right to take a photo in public, nor is it morally wrong to do so. You'd have to get all the way down to social wrong which, besides being arbitrary, is scraping the bottom of the barrel. <cite>wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote>It would be a crime regardless would it not? So that makes no sense. </quote> If he had physically jumped in front of her and was suddenly less than half an arm's length away, she could argue that she was acting in self-defense because she didn't know what he was doing. <cite>AllstarSniper32 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LeetCheet posted...</cite> <quote>You'd think a pornstar of all things wouldn't give a fuck if someone took their picture. Considering they have done lots of nasty shit in front of a camera on the Internet for money for years.</quote> That's like saying a porn star shouldn't mind getting raped as she's had lots of sex over the years. Without permission you don't invite yourself. </quote> I gotta agree with this.</quote> You mean you agree that rape is bad or that you agree taking a photo is comparable to rape? Because nobody is disputing the first whereas anybody with any sense would reject the second. After all, rape is a crime... just like assault. You know what's not a crime, though? Taking a person's photo in a public area. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1