SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Do you have any proof it isn't?

Well?

You're the guys working on assumption here, before I showed up

You made the claim she signed a contract...you back it up???



You unwillingness to accept someone not consenting to sex is a worrying development aswell tbh

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Will you listen to yourself:

Someone is homophobic because they wouldnt fcuk someone...

I'm personally not attracted to heavy women. Guess I'm weightest or some sh1t. And my personal preference is white women. I'm also probably racist.

Christ on a bike. Since when did personal preferences become something bad?

retro:electro

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Do you have any proof it isn't?

Well?

You're the guys working on assumption here, before I showed up

Bahahaha.
Yes. What did we ever do here before you showed up and showed us the light.

Go away to fcuk.

s15r330

Wonder is she still up for shooting a scene...

JackTaylorFan

tomwaterford wrote: »

You made the claim she signed a contract...you back it up???



You unwillingness to accept someone not consenting to sex is a worrying development aswell tbh

No mate, you guys started with all these preconceived notions. How 'bout ye back up some of your ridiculous ****e first.

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No ****... Well thanks for the lesson...

No problem. So now armed with this knew knowledge we can progress further to lesson two.

Given that her issue then was with people who have done that work in that industry......... who we now acknowledge might not even themselves be gay.......... the use of the term "homophobic" for it is a misnomer. A category error. She would likely have had EXACTLY the same issue with an ENTIRELY straight man who had worked in gay porn.

So her issue is with gay porn, not gay people.

JackTaylorFan

s15r330 wrote: »

Wonder is she still up for shooting a scene...

****, there's a market for that, you know.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No mate, you guys started with all these preconceived notions. How 'bout ye back up some of your ridiculous ****e first.

What preconceived notions have I started with??


People have right not to consent to sex is hardly earth shattering stuff??


People have right to look after their health and welfare is hardly ridcolus???




What issues have you with these?

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No problem. So now armed with this knew knowledge we can progress further to lesson two.

Given that her issue then was with people who have done that work in that industry......... who we now acknowledge might not even themselves be gay.......... the use of the term "homophobic" for it is a misnomer. A category error. She would likely have had EXACTLY the same issue with an ENTIRELY straight man who had worked in gay porn.

So her issue is with gay porn, not gay people.

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

suicide_circus

Candie wrote: »

I dunno, a cake is a food item. A human being is an individual with preferences and a desire to avoid health issues as far as possible.

Call me crazy, but I think one might be slightly more important than the other with more complex issues as a result of their sentience.

I hope that doesn't come across as discrimination against cakes.

my point was that in a pervading climate in which ones personal preferences can be superseded by the law or the mob when it comes to you the work that you do, we should not be surprised if unpalatable consequences arise. This woman chose to make her body a commodity and while the abuse she got from the hive mind on social media is utterly vial, if obvious comparisons to other cases present themselves then we shouldn't shy away from shining a light on them.

JackTaylorFan

tomwaterford wrote: »

What preconceived notions have I started with??


People have right not to consent to sex is hardly earth shattering stuff??


People have right to look after their health and welfare is hardly ridcolus???




What issues have you with these?

Look, if you're gonna give me a lecture about backing up wild assertions - you might want to start pointing the finger at everyone else in this thread. Otherwise it all seems a tad hypocritical

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

That is a different set of goal posts than the one we were playing a moment ago.

You are now discussing whether her issue with shooting a scene with someone who has done gay porn is warranted or not. That is a different discussion that I am happy to have after the current one if you wish.

I was discussing your claim that her reasons, whether you think them fallacious or not, for not wanting to do the shoot were "homophobic". Not whether they were right or wrong.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, if you're gonna give me a lecture about backing up wild assertions - you might want to start pointing the finger at everyone else in this thread. Otherwise it all seems a tad hypocritical

Your the only one accusing me of x,y and z....noone else?



What wild assertions elsewhere do you think are occurring elsewhere??

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are now discussing whether her issue with shooting a scene with someone who has done gay porn is warranted or not. That is a different discussion that I am happy to have after the current one if you wish.

This is what I was arguing since I arrived in this dumpsterfire thread.

Keep up, mate.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her job is to **** people.

No it isn't, and you really need to brush up on your employment law and health and safety conditions in the workplace because it's attitudes like yours are exactly what she was objecting to, and rightfully so.

She's more than likely ****ed tons of guys who haven't been tested, but didn't object to it because they were straight.

No, you've got that wrong again. Her objections were based upon the fact that she was not prepared to engage in any sexual activity with male performers who had performed sexual activities with other males because of the increased risk to her own health. It's widely acknowledged as a problem in the adult entertainment industry that straight men engage in gay porn and that the use of condoms is discouraged.

JackTaylorFan

anna080 wrote: »

Bahahaha.
Yes. What did we ever do here before you showed up and showed us the light.

Go away to fcuk.

Yeah, good counter-argument, there.

So, we're wasting too much time and effort on JackTaylorFan.

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

This is what I was arguing since I arrived in this dumpsterfire thread.

Keep up, mate.

Keep up yourself given you have lost track of what YOU said. Here again is your statement: "Her comments were pretty homophobic though."

And that is the statement I am commenting on.

So again:

1) You acknowledge that not all people who do gay porn are, themselves, homosexual.
2) Her issue was with people who have done gay porn.
3) Therefore her "phobia" was towards the gay porn industry, not homosexuals.
4) Therefore the term "homophobic" to describe her comments is a category error and misnomer.

Which part of 1-4 are you having an issue with and I can expand on it.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it isn't, and you really need to brush up on your employment law and health and safety conditions in the workplace because it's attitudes like yours are exactly what she was objecting to, and rightfully so.
.

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

And she's not a slave....she can refuse to do x,y and z at any stage?

nozzferrahhtoo

Wow quite a lot of your definitions are off today. Not all porn starts have sex you know? So saying that the job description has only one aspect is..... well... false.

retro:electro

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

So are you saying she should shut up and force herself to have sex with someone so as to not offend them?

JackTaylorFan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Keep up yourself given you have lost track of what YOU said. Here again is your statement: "Her comments were pretty homophobic though."

And that is the statement I am commenting on.

So again:

1) You acknowledge that not all people who do gay porn are, themselves, homosexual.
2) Her issue was with people who have done gay porn.
3) Therefore her "phobia" was towards the gay porn industry, not homosexuals.
4) Therefore the term "homophobic" to describe her comments is a category error and misnomer.

Which part of 1-4 are you having an issue with and I can expand on it.

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

major bill

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

How many times does it need to be explained to you for the penny to drop? nowhere in her comments was she Homophobic.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

not that it matters but she wasnt an employee so she had every right to accept or not accept certain jobs.

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

So you're saying that she should be forced into having sex with someone?

JackTaylorFan

anna080 wrote: »

So are you saying she should shut up and force herself to have sex with someone so as to not offend them?

No, I am saying she bitched and moaned and made claims that sound a little less reliable when you consider the fact this guy would have to adhere to the same testing straight actors would on a straight shoot. Then she made a big song and dance about it on social media - kinda like a snowflake would - and got hit with a backlash for her stupidity.

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior.

So "2" is the answer to the question I just asked then?

But no, again read her own words rather than change them to suit yourself.

She did say: "you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn"

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has had gay sex".

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has engaged in homosexual behavior".

So it seems you are reading what a person said, but simply hearing what you want to hear while doing so.

Help!!!!

Even if she was homophobic it is her right to refuse to have sex with whoever she wants. And definitely didn't warrant the amount of abuse that may or may not resulted in her taking her own life

retro:electro

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

Not it wasn't. Her preference, not prejudice, was bound by the fact that men who shoot gay sex scenes use condoms and therefore are less likely to be tested- a decision which puts her body at risk. A fairly solid reason. She's entitled to decide who she wants to have inside her. Anything other than that is forcing her to have sex with someone against her will.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

you must be a troll, there is nothing irrational with making a risk based decision.

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're saying that she should be forced into having sex with someone?

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

nozzferrahhtoo

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Yes. Exactly. YOU are saying it. Because she sure as hell didn't.

Help!!!!

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Which is her right to do.

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

So she shouldn't be able to refuse to have sex with someone? Meaning you believe she should be forced to have sex.

I mean, you're just contradicting yourself, "mate".

JenovaProject

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in homosexual actgay porn

FYP can we move on now?

major bill

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No, I am saying she bitched and moaned and made claims that sound a little less reliable when you consider the fact this guy would have to adhere to the same testing straight actors would on a straight shoot. Then she made a big song and dance about it on social media - kinda like a snowflake would - and got hit with a backlash for her stupidity.

It was the snowflakes that got up in arms over her comments cos they did not have the brain capacity to understand what her concerns were.

JackTaylorFan

silverharp wrote: »

you must be a troll, there is nothing irrational with making a risk based decision.

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Given the reported health risks.....what is the issue here??


She should just have sex with someone and gamble on her health....so as not to offend you?

JackTaylorFan

major bill wrote: »

It was the snowflakes that got up in arms over her comments cos they did not have the brain capacity to understand what her concerns were.

Kinda like how you are getting up in arms here over SJWs?

retro:electro

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

You're the one assuming things. You're assuming things on behalf of a dead woman who asserted a sexual preference. Get over yourself.

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

Your logic is that this woman should be forced to have sex, because her refusing to is homophobic.

major bill

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Kinda like how you are getting up in arms here over SJWs?

Hardly

JackTaylorFan

tomwaterford wrote: »

Given the reported health risks.....what is the issue here??

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

JackTaylorFan

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

Nope, that's not her job description. She is an actor. She has employment law on her side, whereas all you appear to have is just your opinion.

tomwaterford

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

An sti test takes 7-10 working days to come through afaik


Pretty sure some more tests take couple weeks
(Possibly months) to show up...if sex education we got in school was accurate?




Unless anyone shooting gay porn waits months between shoots,which is irrational

Anyone should have right to refuse sex with them,otherwise your essentially saying their health means nothing vs offending someone?

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

even our blood bank makes risked based decisions , I think the young lady was entitled to her's. So not irrational you are simply wrong

JackTaylorFan

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

Your whole argument is that someone does not have the right to refuse sex with someone based on how they feel personally. Your argument is flawed and is the very essence of a snowflake. You feel that having a personal choice and preference is somehow offensive and not allowed.

Do you want a safe space next?

Rory28

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

I think I can see where you're coming from. The problem with the test is that HIV has a two week to a month period where the sufferer will test clean.