independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 16th Aug 2018 11:11pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Sexual Harassment Fines In France
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/26/18 6:06am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Sexual Harassment Fines In France

A new law is being proposed in France to fine those who sexually harass women. Harassment could include whistling at women, following them on the street, loud comments about their appearance or ASKING THEM FOR THEIR PHONE NUMBERS.

Asking for a phone number? Really?!?

Asking for a phone number is not sexual harassment. Unwanted requests for dates is not sexual harassment. Complimenting a woman's appearance is not harassment. (Following on the street could be stalking, whistling and loud comments are merely rude).

Don't get me wrong, in certain situations, such as an employee being pursued by an employer for example, these things could constitute harassment because of the employer/employee dynamic. But, out in the real world... no.

May all women who believe otherwise never be complimented on their appearance or asked on a date again.

https://www.rt.com/news/4...ment-fine/


Feminists can attack me if they must. I'm not being sexist here, just a realist. Not that it matters, but, my wife, daughter and mother all agree with me on this.


[Edited 1/26/18 6:23am]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/26/18 7:18am

maplenpg

An important part of your article is the use of the modal verb 'could'; which also carries the notion that it 'could not' with regard what behaviours will be fined. To quote from your article "The 25-page report has yet to be made public, and it’s unclear what its authors define as being an example of “sexual contempt” towards women". The Independent in the UK states that wolf-whistling would not be included. What we do know is that France have classed sexist contempt as "behavior that is an infringement of the freedom of movement of women in public spaces and undermines self-esteem and the right to security".



Macron has stated "the women can not in the Republic be afraid to go out", a sentiment I'm sure few would disagree with. There is nothing worse than being pestered by a man who simply won't leave you alone so I think France is leading the way and hopefully forging a path that other countries will follow.



I very much doubt that your opinion that men will be fined for asking for a phone number will ever occur as that is not what the bill is about. It is about unwanted, repeated pestering that makes a woman feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Your opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again is simply rubbish. I am not a feminist attacking you but if you can't see the positive in this bill then you are blind to the unwanted, persistent, lewd and crude attention that men (often drunk) often bestow onto female strangers.

[Edited 1/26/18 7:18am]

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/26/18 7:43am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

An important part of your article is the use of the modal verb 'could'; which also carries the notion that it 'could not' with regard what behaviours will be fined. To quote from your article "The 25-page report has yet to be made public, and it’s unclear what its authors define as being an example of “sexual contempt” towards women". The Independent in the UK states that wolf-whistling would not be included. What we do know is that France have classed sexist contempt as "behavior that is an infringement of the freedom of movement of women in public spaces and undermines self-esteem and the right to security".



Macron has stated "the women can not in the Republic be afraid to go out", a sentiment I'm sure few would disagree with. There is nothing worse than being pestered by a man who simply won't leave you alone so I think France is leading the way and hopefully forging a path that other countries will follow.



I very much doubt that your opinion that men will be fined for asking for a phone number will ever occur as that is not what the bill is about. It is about unwanted, repeated pestering that makes a woman feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Your opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again is simply rubbish. I am not a feminist attacking you but if you can't see the positive in this bill then you are blind to the unwanted, persistent, lewd and crude attention that men (often drunk) often bestow onto female strangers.

[Edited 1/26/18 7:18am]


You need to read the article and my comments again.

This is not MY article. I don't work for RT.

It's also not MY opinion that asking for phone numbers could be included in the offenses. I have nothing to do with the proposal for this law.

I did not state an opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again. I expressed my WISH that all women that believe unwanted compliments and unwanted requests for dates are harassment, no longer recieve compliments or requests for dates.

I agree when it comes to "repeated pestering". That is already harassment and should not be tolerated.

From the article: "Ouest-France newspaper, which saw the report, says that following a woman, asking for her phone number and whistling at her could all be punishable, as would making loud remarks about a woman’s looks." This is NOT limited to "repeated pestering"

Next time try commenting on what I actually did say or what the article says about this proposed law instead of misrepresenting.


[Edited 1/26/18 7:53am]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/26/18 8:01am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

maplenpg said:

An important part of your article is the use of the modal verb 'could'; which also carries the notion that it 'could not' with regard what behaviours will be fined. To quote from your article "The 25-page report has yet to be made public, and it’s unclear what its authors define as being an example of “sexual contempt” towards women". The Independent in the UK states that wolf-whistling would not be included. What we do know is that France have classed sexist contempt as "behavior that is an infringement of the freedom of movement of women in public spaces and undermines self-esteem and the right to security".



Macron has stated "the women can not in the Republic be afraid to go out", a sentiment I'm sure few would disagree with. There is nothing worse than being pestered by a man who simply won't leave you alone so I think France is leading the way and hopefully forging a path that other countries will follow.



I very much doubt that your opinion that men will be fined for asking for a phone number will ever occur as that is not what the bill is about. It is about unwanted, repeated pestering that makes a woman feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Your opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again is simply rubbish. I am not a feminist attacking you but if you can't see the positive in this bill then you are blind to the unwanted, persistent, lewd and crude attention that men (often drunk) often bestow onto female strangers.

[Edited 1/26/18 7:18am]

Have you ever been around drunk women?

#IDEFINEME #ALBUMSSTILLMATTER

A Liar Shall Not Tarry In My Presence

What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he put your million dollar check
In someone else's box?
Tell me, what's the m
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/26/18 8:56am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

France has issues.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/26/18 10:37am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


An important part of your article is the use of the modal verb 'could'; which also carries the notion that it 'could not' with regard what behaviours will be fined. To quote from your article "The 25-page report has yet to be made public, and it’s unclear what its authors define as being an example of “sexual contempt” towards women". The Independent in the UK states that wolf-whistling would not be included. What we do know is that France have classed sexist contempt as "behavior that is an infringement of the freedom of movement of women in public spaces and undermines self-esteem and the right to security".





Macron has stated "the women can not in the Republic be afraid to go out", a sentiment I'm sure few would disagree with. There is nothing worse than being pestered by a man who simply won't leave you alone so I think France is leading the way and hopefully forging a path that other countries will follow.





I very much doubt that your opinion that men will be fined for asking for a phone number will ever occur as that is not what the bill is about. It is about unwanted, repeated pestering that makes a woman feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Your opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again is simply rubbish. I am not a feminist attacking you but if you can't see the positive in this bill then you are blind to the unwanted, persistent, lewd and crude attention that men (often drunk) often bestow onto female strangers.


[Edited 1/26/18 7:18am]




You need to read the article and my comments again.

This is not MY article. I don't work for RT.

It's also not MY opinion that asking for phone numbers could be included in the offenses. I have nothing to do with the proposal for this law.

I did not state an opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again. I expressed my WISH that all women that believe unwanted compliments and unwanted requests for dates are harassment, no longer recieve compliments or requests for dates.

I agree when it comes to "repeated pestering". That is already harassment and should not be tolerated.

From the article: "Ouest-France newspaper, which saw the report, says that following a woman, asking for her phone number and whistling at her could all be punishable, as would making loud remarks about a woman’s looks." This is NOT limited to "repeated pestering"

Next time try commenting on what I actually did say or what the article says about this proposed law instead of misrepresenting.



[Edited 1/26/18 7:53am]


I sincerely apologize that my linguistic choices caused offence. Between cooking tea and monitoring homework I made the post and the choice of pronoun, rather than the lengthier 'article that you chose' was done for reasons of brevity.

I think the law in France is good and I think that further detail will ensure that it is upheld sensibly. I think the article is flawed in its portrayal of the law, I stand by that. I doubt anyone will ever get a fine for giving a compliment or asking for a phone number. Better?
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/26/18 10:39am

maplenpg

OldFriends4Sale said:



maplenpg said:


An important part of your article is the use of the modal verb 'could'; which also carries the notion that it 'could not' with regard what behaviours will be fined. To quote from your article "The 25-page report has yet to be made public, and it’s unclear what its authors define as being an example of “sexual contempt” towards women". The Independent in the UK states that wolf-whistling would not be included. What we do know is that France have classed sexist contempt as "behavior that is an infringement of the freedom of movement of women in public spaces and undermines self-esteem and the right to security".





Macron has stated "the women can not in the Republic be afraid to go out", a sentiment I'm sure few would disagree with. There is nothing worse than being pestered by a man who simply won't leave you alone so I think France is leading the way and hopefully forging a path that other countries will follow.





I very much doubt that your opinion that men will be fined for asking for a phone number will ever occur as that is not what the bill is about. It is about unwanted, repeated pestering that makes a woman feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Your opinion that women will never be complimented or asked on a date again is simply rubbish. I am not a feminist attacking you but if you can't see the positive in this bill then you are blind to the unwanted, persistent, lewd and crude attention that men (often drunk) often bestow onto female strangers.


[Edited 1/26/18 7:18am]





Have you ever been around drunk women?




If a drunk woman pesters a man to the point where his security and safety feels compromised, then she too should be fined.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/26/18 11:05am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

France has issues.


nod Jerry Lewis died.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/26/18 11:09am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

I sincerely apologize that my linguistic choices caused offence. Between cooking tea and monitoring homework I made the post and the choice of pronoun, rather than the lengthier 'article that you chose' was done for reasons of brevity. I think the law in France is good and I think that further detail will ensure that it is upheld sensibly. I think the article is flawed in its portrayal of the law, I stand by that. I doubt anyone will ever get a fine for giving a compliment or asking for a phone number. Better?


Yes, it is.

However, this article by RT does indeed state that Oest-France Newspaper saw the report and has stated otherwise.

The problem of differentiating between unwanted compliments or attempts to hook-up and actual harassment such as stalking or "repeated pestering" is central to the debate and evidently the proposal is worded in such a way as to make such distinctions unclear. Therein lies the issue.


We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/26/18 11:43am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


I sincerely apologize that my linguistic choices caused offence. Between cooking tea and monitoring homework I made the post and the choice of pronoun, rather than the lengthier 'article that you chose' was done for reasons of brevity. I think the law in France is good and I think that further detail will ensure that it is upheld sensibly. I think the article is flawed in its portrayal of the law, I stand by that. I doubt anyone will ever get a fine for giving a compliment or asking for a phone number. Better?


Yes, it is.

However, this article by RT does indeed state that Oest-France Newspaper saw the report and has stated otherwise.

The problem of differentiating between unwanted compliments or attempts to hook-up and actual harassment such as stalking or "repeated pestering" is central to the debate and evidently the proposal is worded in such a way as to make such distinctions unclear. Therein lies the issue.



It's not actually that difficult to differentiate between a man starting up a mutual conversation with a woman and one where a man continually pesters a woman despite her either ignoring him or telling him to leave her alone; it is the second that these fines are aimed at. The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it.
[Edited 1/26/18 12:30pm]
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/26/18 12:32pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


Yes, it is.

However, this article by RT does indeed state that Oest-France Newspaper saw the report and has stated otherwise.

The problem of differentiating between unwanted compliments or attempts to hook-up and actual harassment such as stalking or "repeated pestering" is central to the debate and evidently the proposal is worded in such a way as to make such distinctions unclear. Therein lies the issue.


It's not actually that difficult to differentiate between a man starting up a mutual conversation with a woman and one where a man continually pesters a woman despite her either ignoring him or telling him to leave her alone; it is the second that these fines are aimed at. The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it. [Edited 1/26/18 12:30pm]

True.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/26/18 1:17pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


Yes, it is.

However, this article by RT does indeed state that Oest-France Newspaper saw the report and has stated otherwise.

The problem of differentiating between unwanted compliments or attempts to hook-up and actual harassment such as stalking or "repeated pestering" is central to the debate and evidently the proposal is worded in such a way as to make such distinctions unclear. Therein lies the issue.


It's not actually that difficult to differentiate between a man starting up a mutual conversation with a woman and one where a man continually pesters a woman despite her either ignoring him or telling him to leave her alone; it is the second that these fines are aimed at. The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it. [Edited 1/26/18 12:30pm]


Those that have seen it have reported what they've read, and yes, we can discuss that.

I agree, it's not difficult to differentiate for most people. Clearly some people do have a problem differentiating. All the more reason for the wording of the law to not be vague and allow such people to misinterpret.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/26/18 2:47pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/26/18 2:51pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it.


People who have read it have reported what they read and we can discuss what they've said.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/26/18 11:06pm

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


djThunderfunk said:



Yes, it is.

However, this article by RT does indeed state that Oest-France Newspaper saw the report and has stated otherwise.

The problem of differentiating between unwanted compliments or attempts to hook-up and actual harassment such as stalking or "repeated pestering" is central to the debate and evidently the proposal is worded in such a way as to make such distinctions unclear. Therein lies the issue.




It's not actually that difficult to differentiate between a man starting up a mutual conversation with a woman and one where a man continually pesters a woman despite her either ignoring him or telling him to leave her alone; it is the second that these fines are aimed at. The report is not published yet so we can't discuss the wording of it. [Edited 1/26/18 12:30pm]


Those that have seen it have reported what they've read, and yes, we can discuss that.

I agree, it's not difficult to differentiate for most people. Clearly some people do have a problem differentiating. All the more reason for the wording of the law to not be vague and allow such people to misinterpret.


Who are 'some people'? This will be enforced by law. If a woman calls the police to say that a man on the street is harassing her, then potentially he could be fined. Newspapers are reporting that this does not include someone chatting someone up or wolf whistling. It is for men who persistently pester a female and compromise her security. I really don't see the problem.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/27/18 6:30am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


Those that have seen it have reported what they've read, and yes, we can discuss that.

I agree, it's not difficult to differentiate for most people. Clearly some people do have a problem differentiating. All the more reason for the wording of the law to not be vague and allow such people to misinterpret.

Who are 'some people'? This will be enforced by law. If a woman calls the police to say that a man on the street is harassing her, then potentially he could be fined. Newspapers are reporting that this does not include someone chatting someone up or wolf whistling. It is for men who persistently pester a female and compromise her security. I really don't see the problem.


Ouest-France, who read the proposal, says the language COULD BE interpreted as including these things. That is the problem. The language should be clear that it does NOT include wolf whistling, etc.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/27/18 6:53am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Their ain't no tits on the radio.

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/27/18 7:05am

13cjk13

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Their ain't no tits on the radio.

And you can't grab them by the pussy, either.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 01/27/18 7:08am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

13cjk13 said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Their ain't no tits on the radio.

And you can't grab them by the pussy, either.

8 6 7 5 3 0 fined!

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 01/27/18 10:43am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


djThunderfunk said:



Those that have seen it have reported what they've read, and yes, we can discuss that.

I agree, it's not difficult to differentiate for most people. Clearly some people do have a problem differentiating. All the more reason for the wording of the law to not be vague and allow such people to misinterpret.



Who are 'some people'? This will be enforced by law. If a woman calls the police to say that a man on the street is harassing her, then potentially he could be fined. Newspapers are reporting that this does not include someone chatting someone up or wolf whistling. It is for men who persistently pester a female and compromise her security. I really don't see the problem.


Ouest-France, who read the proposal, says the language COULD BE interpreted as including these things. That is the problem. The language should be clear that it does NOT include wolf whistling, etc.


And I COULD BE outside your window right now, looking in with a pair of binoculars. COULD is meanless, I am glad France is taking these steps and I very much doubt that any man who strikes up a conversation with a woman will be fined. There is another way to avoid the ambiguity of wolf whistling though, just don't do it.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 01/27/18 10:48am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


Ouest-France, who read the proposal, says the language COULD BE interpreted as including these things. That is the problem. The language should be clear that it does NOT include wolf whistling, etc.

And I COULD BE outside your window right now, looking in with a pair of binoculars. COULD is meanless,

Not meaningless. If it can be improperly interpreted, it will be. It's naive to believe otherwise.

I am glad France is taking these steps and I very much doubt that any man who strikes up a conversation with a woman will be fined.

So why would you have a problem if the wording clearly excludes such things instead of being open to interpretation?

There is another way to avoid the ambiguity of wolf whistling though, just don't do it.

It sounds to me like you would be perfectly fine with such a whistler being charged with harassment.



We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 01/27/18 10:52am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Noam Chomsky even says street jeers are legal.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 01/27/18 10:56am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


djThunderfunk said:



Ouest-France, who read the proposal, says the language COULD BE interpreted as including these things. That is the problem. The language should be clear that it does NOT include wolf whistling, etc.



And I COULD BE outside your window right now, looking in with a pair of binoculars. COULD is meanless,

Not meaningless. If it can be improperly interpreted, it will be. It's naive to believe otherwise.

I am glad France is taking these steps and I very much doubt that any man who strikes up a conversation with a woman will be fined.

So why would you have a problem if the wording clearly excludes such things instead of being open to interpretation?

There is another way to avoid the ambiguity of wolf whistling though, just don't do it.

It sounds to me like you would be perfectly fine with such a whistler being charged with harassment.




Let's wait until the report is published, then we'll discuss the wording. I am happy that France is taking measures to prevent street harassment. With regards your comment on wolf whistling, I really think men should be working rather than watching who passes them by.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 01/27/18 11:03am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:



Let's wait until the report is published, then we'll discuss the wording. I am happy that France is taking measures to prevent street harassment. With regards your comment on wolf whistling, I really think men should be working rather than watching who passes them by.


Who cares whether you or I think men SHOULD be wolf whistling. If one is an idiot and DOES do it, SHOULD they be prosecuted? Don't think about it too long, the answer is, NO.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 01/27/18 11:59am

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


djThunderfunk said:






Let's wait until the report is published, then we'll discuss the wording. I am happy that France is taking measures to prevent street harassment. With regards your comment on wolf whistling, I really think men should be working rather than watching who passes them by.


Who cares whether you or I think men SHOULD be wolf whistling. If one is an idiot and DOES do it, SHOULD they be prosecuted? Don't think about it too long, the answer is, NO.


And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling will not be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, the report isn't published yet.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 01/27/18 12:52pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


Who cares whether you or I think men SHOULD be wolf whistling. If one is an idiot and DOES do it, SHOULD they be prosecuted? Don't think about it too long, the answer is, NO.

And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling will not be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, the report isn't published yet.


And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling would be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, I am discussing the article about the opinions of those who have read it.

beatdeadhorse

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 01/27/18 11:28pm

maplenpg

djThunderfunk said:



maplenpg said:


djThunderfunk said:



Who cares whether you or I think men SHOULD be wolf whistling. If one is an idiot and DOES do it, SHOULD they be prosecuted? Don't think about it too long, the answer is, NO.



And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling will not be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, the report isn't published yet.


And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling would be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, I am discussing the article about the opinions of those who have read it.

beatdeadhorse


Which was my whole point in post 2. The article you chose says one thing, the article I chose says another thing, therefore until the report is published, or the law established, we can't say who is right. I also gave my opinion in post 2 on the article you chose - that I believe the law is for woman being repeatedly pestered, I don't believe starting a conversation, giving a compliment, or asking for a phone number falls into that bracket.

Look, you chose to focus on my choice of pronoun rather than discuss the topic or my opinion on the article you chose from the outset.Your opinion is clear in the opening post, I think I've made my opinion clear too. Have the last word cause I'm outta here.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 01/28/18 6:59am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


And if you bothered to read the article I posted it says that wolf whistling would be included. I will state again, as I have repeatedly, I am discussing the article about the opinions of those who have read it.

beatdeadhorse

Which was my whole point in post 2. The article you chose says one thing, the article I chose says another thing, therefore until the report is published, or the law established, we can't say who is right. I also gave my opinion in post 2 on the article you chose - that I believe the law is for woman being repeatedly pestered, I don't believe starting a conversation, giving a compliment, or asking for a phone number falls into that bracket. Look, you chose to focus on my choice of pronoun rather than discuss the topic or my opinion on the article you chose from the outset.Your opinion is clear in the opening post, I think I've made my opinion clear too. Have the last word cause I'm outta here.


falloff Gotta love it when someone argues in circles and then plays the "you have the last word" card. comfort

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 01/28/18 10:09am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

DJ, quit triggering people.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 01/28/18 12:52pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

DJ, quit triggering people.


I'll think about it... when you stop stirring shit. doody stirthepot

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Sexual Harassment Fines In France