Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

Options
1…457910…16

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭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.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #183
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #184
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #185
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    JenovaProject
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,299 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #188
    major bill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #189
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #190
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #191
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #194
    major bill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭major bill


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    Kinda like how you are getting up in arms here over SJWs?

    Hardly


  • Options
    #195
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #196
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #197
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #198
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #199
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #200
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Options
    #201
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    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

    Are you in the porn industry?

    If not, do you not think that this girl, as an insider who has real-life experience of it, might know better than those of us who only read articles from the outside?

    She clearly did not trust the guidelines were sufficient to protect her. I don't know whether they were or weren't sufficient, but I do believe someone in the industry would know better than me, considering my only experience of the porn industry is in my browser history.


  • Options
    #203
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    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

    So what if it was based on prejudice?


  • Options
    #204
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    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

    Again, you are assuming it was the abuse she got online alone that caused her suicide. And within the space of this thread beginning and now, other factors have come to light - i.e. she was suffering depression.

    I would also suggest she shouldn't have tweeted her comments in the first place. She knew it would cause an outcry, it's what she wanted. If I have a problem with
    co-worker, I don't go tweeting about it unless I want a reaction.


  • Options
    #205
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    So what if it was based on prejudice?

    Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.


  • Options
    #206
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


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

    But you are saying she was frustrating her contract by refusing to have sex with actors who had acted in gay porn scenes?


  • Options
    #207
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    Again, you are assuming it was the abuse she got online alone that caused her suicide. And within the space of this thread beginning and now, other factors have come to light - i.e. she was suffering depression.

    I would also suggest she shouldn't have tweeted her comments in the first place. She knew it would cause an outcry, it's what she wanted. If I have a problem with
    co-worker, I don't go tweeting about it unless I want a reaction.

    Nope, thats why I wrote "may or may not"
    But all these people tweet because they think people care what they are up to


  • Options
    #208
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    Hmmm

    Where does it say I said she didn't have the right not to? I said in a work place, I grin and bear it. I don't quit and complain online.


  • Options
    #209
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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


    Well of course her motives were based on prejudice, against males who had previously had sex with other males, and she has good reason for it too, because of the lack of standards and regulation in the porn industry. You were first trying to suggest that her opinion was homophobic, but her opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with a prejudice against gay men. Her opinion was relating to straight men!


  • Options
    #210
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.

    She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    Nope, thats why I wrote "may or may not"
    But all these people tweet because they think people care what they are up to

    No, she was pretty much spewing **** about a co-worker who had done gay-porn. This wasn't a going to the gym tweet - this was a scaremongering "those dirty gay boys" tweet, which she is entitled to do. But expect a backlash.


Advertisement