Riley Gaines / Joe Rogan
- Thread starter jlock7614
- Start date
So @tcurtis wants to see his junk now. You want proof well there is absolute proof men are going into women's locker rooms and the businesses are taking the side of protecting the man instead of women's rights. Just like you are. No video should have happened because he should have never been in there to start with.
You defend squatters rights as well I'm sure because liberals have passed "laws" allowing it.
You defend squatters rights as well I'm sure because liberals have passed "laws" allowing it.
I havebt said whether I thought a man should be in the ladies locker room or not. I haven’t take any sides other than to say taking the video was wrong. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it
Then pick a side. Should men be allowed in women's locker rooms? Yes or no? Pick one.
"others"...? What others? Other men? Other women? Kind of important in this context. Like... You could say it's wrong to film someone having sex.... But if my 9yo son saw a classmate being raped by a teacher and filmed it.... Is the fact he filmed it the problem you see there?
If you read my previous posts, I clearly stated only in a select few circumstances is it ok to film someone in a locker room. Rape would be clearly be on that list.
I’ll pick a side when the questions I’ve repeatedly asked in this thread are answered.
TCurtis evidently rejected the “me too” movement and the “believe women” movement. He must have really been troubled and pissed when a former president was sued for defamation premised on an alleged sexual assault that happened many years ago (well outside the original statute of limitations) for which there was no physical evidence, but only one woman’s word, because he knows they lie, even in groups. I am sure he has no way of believing that Penn created a coercive environment or that that the NCAA favored the man Thomas over the woman Gaines when they gave the trophy to Thomas when the two actually tied in the pool (there is video of the race). He will need video to substantiate that, as well.
It’s funny, however, he believed just about everything Britt Griner said when arrested in Russia. What women to believe and what women to doubt because people lie is something only he must know.
And we know you’re an arrogant ass. You might actually be surprised at what my stance is. You being your normal egotistical prick won’t ever help you find out.
Come on caveman. Don’t mean tweet him or he won’t tell you what side he’s on after 16 pages.
What a twat.
Dude, people have asked and you act like your opinion is some prized treat that cannot be seen until the right time. Nothing more egotistical than that.
He came her stalking, just looking to take an hit at his favorite target, and did not even know what the thread was about. So, we need to give him enough time to do his research.
I have asked you multiple questions that you have refused to answer so I will say again. When you start to answer questions asked if you, I’ll start to answer questions asked of me by you and people like you. My opinion must be some sort of prized treat since you and others keep asking me for it.
I commented on this thread plenty when it started. That’s how I knew it was seeing new comments. I responded again when the subject of PF came up.
Nope. A search of your name shows your first post was Monday to respond to my post.
Unless, of course, you are admitting to posting under various screen names.
Actually, unlike you, I will admit when I am wrong. You are correct. There was another Riley Gaines thread a few months ago that I commented on. I thought this was the same thread. I was wrong as they are different threads. That was my mistake.
I answered your question … twice. Other people answered your question. Pretending otherwise to avoid the issue of this thread is bonkers.
You really have to choice but to admit. 😂 (or, maybe you remember posting as Matteo - 😝)
And, you came here just to post a response to my post to another poster. Caught stalking again.
My question was a simple yes or no answer. You never gave either one of those. You attempted to answer without an answer.
Been here the entire time under one single account...This one...Didn't even realize it was your post I responded to initially...However, when I went back and reread the post I responded to, it was easily to see it was yours even if your name wasn't attached based on the nonsense in it. I know you want me to stalk you. You are infatuated with me. It is obvious...Hopefully we aren't ever in the same locker room...I would fully expect you to record me for your own personal enjoyment later...That seems to be just the kind of guy you are.
False. You called me names and then demanded I respond to your rabbit hole strawman. I said if she broke the law, prosecute her.
You have attempted, like your Hall Monitor buddy, to rabbit hole this thread on an issue that is not related to the subject.
Asked and answered. Now quit lying.
You are brain damaged or a liar. Here is your response to my post:
There is no poster here who knows our history who thinks you posted the above and had clue you were responding to me. My gosh. How pathetic.
That still isn't an answer. The question was should she be prosecuted for videoing? That question is a yes or no. You continue to fail to actually answer the question as presented. Saying IF she broke the law, prosecute her isn't an answer. The answer would be yes she should be or no she shouldn't be. You try this nonsense all the time. You claim to answer a question when all you do is literally everything but answer it. As an attorney, you wouldn't ask a yes or no question and allow the person answering it to answer anything other than yes or no because you know any other answer isn't really an answer. So yes or no, should she be prosecuted (or punished in some way) for videoing someone without there permission in a private locker room? The only answers to that question are yes or no. Do you have the balls to actually answer it or will you continue to do your best Fred Astaire impersonation and dance around it?
Except everyone on your side would be losing their mind if the videoing was the other way around. That isn't just a you thing. That is a general thing with everyone on your side. My gosh. How pathetic.
A little common sense education for you: just because you don’t like an answer does not mean you did not get an answer. Most people know that. Go rabbit hole someone else. 🤦♂️
So again you cant even say a simple yes or no. Want me to go away? Fine. Stop responding to me. As soon as you do that, I will. You could even block me. That would make me go away too. You have multiple options to stop hearing from me.
lol this is like that trial ongoing up in NY.
Won’t say what laws were actually violated, or specific crimes were actually committed, but wants you to commit to prosecution.
"So, is it illegal to record someone without their permission? It is not illegal to record someone without their consent in a public place if they are visible and audible, especially if they don’t have reasonable expectations of privacy. But in a private setting, such as a bathroom or changing area, recording someone without their knowledge is illegal."
Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Their Permission?
Doesn't take long to find that videoing in a place with reasonable expectations of privacy such as a locker room is illegal.
"So, is it illegal to record someone without their permission? It is not illegal to record someone without their consent in a public place if they are visible and audible, especially if they don’t have reasonable expectations of privacy. But in a private setting, such as a bathroom or changing area, recording someone without their knowledge is illegal."
Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Their Permission?
www.movavi.com
Doesn't take long to find that videoing in a place with reasonable expectations of privacy such as a locker room is illegal.
First off you still haven’t said what law was broken.
Second, taking you post for what it is, allowing men into the women’s locker room pretty much blows your claim that there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy, no?
Not when there isn't a law preventing that like there is for the recording. Those "men" who identify as women are doing absolutely nothing wrong by simply going about their business in a locker room and utilizing it for what its acual purpose is. Those that truly identify and live life as a woman are doing nothing to violate anyone's expectation of privacy. If a man is using it as an excuse to ogle women or worse, that is different and no they shouldn't be in that locker room. News flash, a door with a sign that says women on it won't prevent them from doing it regardless of what a trans individual is doing. Do you think trans individuals have just now started using locker rooms?
The King of Rabbit Holes wants this thread to be about a woman who may have felt threatened taking a picture or video in a dressing room rather than start a new thread on that non-sequitur issue that apparently is paramount to the Rabbit Hole King.
The man in the women’s locker room is the victim here or suffer the rabbit hole!
The man in the women’s locker room is the victim here or suffer the rabbit hole!
Genuinely curious what specific law you keep referring to that’s applicable here.
I also find it amusing you think women are not reasonable in their expectation of privacy from men in a women’s locker room, but mentally ill men have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the women’s locker room.
You believe mentally ill men while most of the medical community disagrees with you. The majority of trans people live everyday without any sort of issue and you probably don't even know they are trans. They are doing nothing to invade the privacy of anyone when using a locker room. A lesbian in a women's locker room is doing more to invade their privacy than a trans individual.
Similar threads
