Man charged after walking up to and kissing female reporter during newscast

Francesca R said:
It is, nonetheless, so.
Click to expand...

You've got to appreciate that you answered my telling you that insisting does not make it more true by insisting further. :rolleyes:

Power is the ability to prevail. The fellow wanted to kiss the reporter. She did not want him to. He prevailed. He exerted power over her.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but wordplay in order to support a predetermined conclusion. He wanted to do something. She was unaware of it. He did not ask permission. He did something stupid and illegal. You're now defining "power" as "doing something successfully", when the implication of the original claim was that he was asserting male dominance, essentially an ideological stance. So which is it?

You have not countered any of those.
Click to expand...

You pretended to read lionking's mind when you have no way of determining what he thinks or why. The counter is to point this out. I even offered my own bit of mind-reading to illustrate my point but it flew right over your head.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You pretended to read lionking's mind when you have no way of determining what he thinks or why.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose if, for some reason, we actually wanted to know what lionking thinks, I suppose we could always try reading his posts where he tells us what he's thinking.

Nah, that would never work.

Reasons.
 
Belz... said:
This is nothing but wordplay in order to support a predetermined conclusion. He wanted to do something. She was unaware of it. He did not ask permission. He did something stupid and illegal. You're now defining "power" as "doing something successfully", when the implication of the original claim was that he was asserting male dominance, essentially an ideological stance. So which is it?
Click to expand...

Wow, false binary AND word salad. Good show.
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, I suppose if, for some reason, we actually wanted to know what lionking thinks, I suppose we could always try reading his posts where he tells us what he's thinking.

Nah, that would never work.

Reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, we could, and we can, and we do, but if you could point out where the male privilege is in saying that perhaps it isn't something that should go to court, help me out.

Max_mang said:
Wow, false binary AND word salad. Good show.
Click to expand...

What in the blue **** are you talking about? I'm pointing out that Francesca's description of the events is phrased in order to serve her conclusion. That's not word salad. As for the false binary you have to blame Francesca, since she's the one who introduced a second meaning.
 
Belz... said:
Well, we could, and we can, and we do, but if you could point out where the male privilege is in saying that perhaps it isn't something that should go to court, help me out.
Click to expand...

Well, he's dismissing a sexual assault against a woman as nothing serious, even comparing it to littering. I can see why someone - I don't know, a woman maybe? - might think that was an example of male privilege.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
 
Belz... said:
You've got to appreciate that you answered my telling you that insisting does not make it more true by insisting further.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, which you know since you quote the justification, which you have not argued against. At all.

This is nothing but wordplay [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
It's the facts of the case plus the definition of power. Why don't you argue why he was not exerting power over her? You can't it seems. You've just got no he didn't, in contradiction to the facts and the definition of power (which I have not seen you challenge). Your unsupported assertion is rejected.

You pretended [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
I said it seems to be male privilege and outlined why, which is not pretence. Your rebuttal is oh wait, it might not be. Big whoop.
 
Cavemonster said:
I don't see the abstraction, it's a pretty concrete set of words.
Click to expand...


The words themselves may be "pretty concrete", but the meaning isn't. Your phrase "putting your mouth on people" is much less specific than attempting to kiss on the cheek. It can mean almost anything, from fellatio and cunnilingus to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
We saw the same argumentative technique being used in the thread about egging Nazies when the much more specific act of egging (or milk-shaking) a Nazi was described as throwing objects at people. It is a variation of hyperbole since the connotation of the abstraction is so much worse than the description of what actually took place.
 
Max_mang said:
Who said anything about rape?
Click to expand...


I did. Twice, as you've noticed.

Why do you bring it up and mention it multiple times?
Click to expand...


To emphasize that the reporter is not in a situation where she has reason to fear that an attempted kiss on the cheek is the start of something worse.
 
dann said:
The words themselves may be "pretty concrete", but the meaning isn't. Your phrase "putting your mouth on people" is much less specific than attempting to kiss on the cheek. It can mean almost anything, from fellatio and cunnilingus to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
We saw the same argumentative technique being used in the thread about egging Nazies when the much more specific act of egging (or milk-shaking) a Nazi was described as throwing objects at people. It is a variation of hyperbole since the connotation of the abstraction is so much worse than the description of what actually took place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a cultural thing where you wring your hands over wording of things but are okay with people kissing strangers without consent. In my culture we allow a very wide range of speech but unwelcome kissing isn't approved.
 
dann said:
Yes, it is. Other culture are much more relaxed, and they tend to be able to distinguish between different kinds of touchting, which some Americans appear to be incapable of.
Click to expand...

No, we can do that here too. An intimate touch, like say an unwanted kiss, is treated differently from an unsolicited handshake or a pat on the shoulder for instance.
 
Checkmite said:
No, we can do that here too. An intimate touch, like say an unwanted kiss, is treated differently from an unsolicited handshake or a pat on the shoulder for instance.
Click to expand...

And I will say it again, this was not a greeting or anything, or any sort of personal interaction.

The lech just strolled up to her and kissed her.

In this case, a pat on the shoulder would be just as inappropriate.

A handshake is a two-way interaction. It takes both participating. And if one doesn't participate, just grabbing a person's hand and shaking it would also be inappropriate.
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, he's dismissing a sexual assault against a woman as nothing serious, even comparing it to littering. I can see why someone - I don't know, a woman maybe? - might think that was an example of male privilege.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Click to expand...

You keep on saying this. It makes your argument ridiculous.
 
lionking said:
I understand your point, but can’t agree with a court appearance.

Tomorrow is Australian Rules Grand Final day. Whichever team wins tomorrow I’ll bet on hundreds if not thousands of possibly (but not necessarily, and this is a major point) unwelcome kisses on cheeks after the final siren.

So do we ban all cheek kisses on the basis that they just may be unwelcome to some? Should that be the default position? I don’t think so.

On football fields world wide, pats on the backside of teammates and even the opposition are common. Should there be charges against the vanishingly small number of unwelcome pats on the backside?

Jeez, this is bordering on the actions of a police state.
Click to expand...

Okay, so spontaneous displays of affection between two fans celebrating an emotional event together.

What's this guy's excuse?
 
What I'm taking away from certain posters -

"Uptight American women should relax and enjoy it."

I'll stand by my earlier post. It's too bad the reporter isn't Ralph Castro's daughter.
 
dann said:
To emphasize that the reporter is not in a situation where she has reason to fear that an attempted kiss on the cheek is the start of something worse.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter to you? Why do think it matters to anyone else?
 
BStrong said:
What I'm taking away from certain posters -

"Uptight American women should relax and enjoy it."

I'll stand by my earlier post. It's too bad the reporter isn't Ralph Castro's daughter.
Click to expand...


What you take away is very subjective, of course, but could you please inform us who asked the uptight Americans to enjoy it. Or asked them to do anything at all ...
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, he's dismissing a sexual assault against a woman as nothing serious, even comparing it to littering.
Click to expand...

Things can be serious but not worthy of going to court.

Myself, I'm not sure where I stand on that, so don't take that as an endorsement of Lionking's stance, but let's at least understand each other's positions and represent them accurately.

Francesca R said:
Incorrect, which you know since you quote the justification, which you have not argued against. At all.
Click to expand...

You quoted my counter-argument and addressed it! How can you claim that I didn't make it? You do that twice in your post and yet you otherwise acknowledge that argument.

It's the facts of the case plus the definition of power.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means.

There are several definitions of power. The journalist used one, and when I challenged its use in this instance you instead brought up a second one. Doing something to someone is only an exertion of power in the broadest sense, which is not the one I was challenging.

Why don't you argue why he was not exerting power over her? You can't it seems.
Click to expand...

I have, actually.

I said it seems to be male privilege and outlined why.
Click to expand...

You speculated, which is exactly what I said earlier.
 
Checkmite said:
No, we can do that here too. An intimate touch, like say an unwanted kiss, is treated differently from an unsolicited handshake or a pat on the shoulder for instance.
Click to expand...


Again, why not stick with an attempted kiss on the cheek? Why the abstraction? He doesn't appear to be a pussy grabber, for instance.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Perhaps it's a cultural thing where you wring your hands over wording of things but are okay with people kissing strangers without consent.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between the two wordings? And no, I'm not at all wringing my hands ...

In my culture we allow a very wide range of speech but unwelcome kissing isn't approved.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand: Misleading language is approved, but kissing on the cheek isn't. Got it!
 
dann said:
What you take away is very subjective, of course, but could you please inform us who asked the uptight Americans to enjoy it. Or asked them to do anything at all ...
Click to expand...

Just stand there and take it quietly then? Lie back and think of America?
 
dann said:
Again, why not stick with an attempted kiss on the cheek? Why the abstraction? He doesn't appear to be a pussy grabber, for instance.
Click to expand...

The presumption is the same in either case: claiming some inherent right to intimately contact another person at will, irrespective of their consent or opinion.
 
dann said:
Do you understand the difference between the two wordings? And no, I'm not at all wringing my hands ...

Yes, I understand: Misleading language is approved, but kissing on the cheek isn't. Got it!
Click to expand...

Yes, that is it. In my culture we have a great tolerance for saying things but not for touching people without consent. I don't see why you get to criticize us for this but we can't criticize cultures that do the opposite. Perhaps the most practical solution is to abide by the cultural rules of the place you're in....which is what is happening with the situation in the OP.
 
The reporter was doing a story on a Bourbon festival.
You have to wonder if the guy had not just consumed a bit too much of that product...
 
Aren't we all just missing the bigger picture here? She was reporting on the Bourbon and Beyond festival. While this interaction is clearly in the Beyond category it is still within the stated limits set by the festival's organizers.
 
Elagabalus said:
Aren't we all just missing the bigger picture here? She was reporting on the Bourbon and Beyond festival. While this interaction is clearly in the Beyond category it is still within the stated limits set by the festival's organizers.
Click to expand...

In the screenshot, it's pretty clear she is reporting from outside the festival.
 
It certainly could have been worse. But it could also have been better, he could have passed on by like every other man there. Also the women. I'm sure the reporter is accustomed to doing her job in many locations without strangers kissing her.

If not pressing charges, then what? Meekly accepting her brush with the greatness that is male that deigned to reach down and touch the unworthy female?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
It certainly could have been worse. But it could also have been better, he could have passed on by like every other man there. Also the women. I'm sure the reporter is accustomed to doing her job in many locations without strangers kissing her.

If not pressing charges, then what? Meekly accepting her brush with the greatness that is male that deigned to reach down and touch the unworthy female?
Click to expand...

I think he considered her worthy. That and the fact that he was (probably) **** faced on Bourbon and decided to do something stoopid.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
It certainly could have been worse. But it could also have been better, he could have passed on by like every other man there. Also the women. I'm sure the reporter is accustomed to doing her job in many locations without strangers kissing her.

If not pressing charges, then what? Meekly accepting her brush with the greatness that is male that deigned to reach down and touch the unworthy female?
Click to expand...
It's just a hilarious, flattering joke! How else should a woman take it when a stranger kisses her out of nowhere, or brushes his hand against her butt, or shoves his dick into her mouth?

If this lesbian really had such a problem with the kiss, she should have pulled a gun and shot him 10 times. Since she didn't, that's consent.
 
Belz... said:
Doing something to someone is only an exertion of power in the broadest sense, which is not the one I was challenging.
Click to expand...
That is recognised for the (messy) concession that it is. He exerted power over her. Which is what I said and is correct.

(I think many folks might try to weaken an argument by saying something like "it only applies in the narrowest sense", yet you attempt the opposite, great work there)

You speculated, which is exactly what I said earlier.
Click to expand...
Nope, I said it seems like male privilege and I noted the evidence for this. Read up about how that works.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't all this be averted with that color coded bandana thingy, where the color declares what you are into?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom