Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did not see it either. She is the one who approached him and wanted his name. I did not see him make any gesture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
Neither did I.
He actually did, toward the latter part of the video. He spread his hands outward and down a couple of times, in an ambiguous gesture that could be construed as a "hey, whaddya want from me" gesture or a gesture toward his genitals. It looked to me as though it could have gone either way, and if some people interpret it as the latter, I sure can't argue the point.
Well, you just don't want to see. I can't make it any more clearer. He had every "right" to be rude and obnoxious. My point was he had no right to escalate it with a sexual reference to his manhood. If you don't believe he ever did that, then there's no way you can understand my point, because there was more to it than just giving her a false name.
Once again, yes - he did have that right. I'm not supporting the behavior, but I do support his right to behave that way. Personally, I think there were much better ways to handle it (because she was such a hair-trigger nut case, it would have been easy to send her around the bend in a hundred other ways that would have been more tasteful), but if that's the way he chose to handle it, that's his right. As disgusting as it may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
Nope. That's BS. Either he walks away or he doesn't. You don't "try to disengage" you just do. That woman wasn't physically holding him there. He stayed to trade jabs with her which was when he gestured towards his crotch to let her know exactly what he meant and it escalated. Right up until he finally did walk away and guess what? He won, because security stopped her and not him.
Sorry, no. He was moving away the entire time. Apparently you think he was bound to abide by some specific standard, some minimum velocity at which he should have been moving in order to get clear of the rampaging lunatic, but unfortunately there is no such minimum standard.
In fact, he was under no obligation to move away from her at all. It seems obvious to me that he was moving slowly because even though she was annoying the hell out of him, he was enjoying pushing her buttons, and that's fine. I don't blame him, and again, she has nobody to blame for that but herself. He was under no obligation to sprint away at top speed like OJ Simpson racing through an airport – he was making a halfhearted but nevertheless deliberate effort to move away from her, and even that was more than she had a right to expect of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
Maybe if you answer the question of whether or not he made a gesture towards his manhood to let her know what his fake name was referring to I could understand, because I've already been through all this.
He may have, may not have. I couldn't tell, but certainly won't argue that he didn't.
But it doesn't matter. Again, where do you get the idea that he had no right to do that? You keep refusing to answer that question. He was minding his own business until she made a conscious and deliberate decision to get into his face, and whatever happened after that was up to him, however he wanted to handle it. There is no law governing good taste, so everything he did was entirely legal. Ergo, he had a perfect right to behave exactly as he did, no matter how childish or disgusting it may have been. If it bothers her that much, maybe she'll learn not to pull that crap on total strangers, although from looking at her self-righteous Facebook page (seething with anger over all the injustices she is forced to endure at the hands of... gasp... WHITE MALES!!!!!) I somehow doubt that.
Once again, yes - he did have that right. I'm not supporting the behavior, but I do support his right to behave that way. Personally, I think there were much better ways to handle it (because she was such a hair-trigger nut case, it would have been easy to send her around the bend in a hundred other ways that would have been more tasteful), but if that's the way he chose to handle it, that's his right. As disgusting as it may be.
No. The Constitution, as you so condescendingly tried to point out earlier, does not give you the right to make sexually lewd comments to people.
Quote:
Sorry, no. He was moving away the entire time. Apparently you think he was bound to abide by some specific standard, some minimum velocity at which he should have been moving in order to get clear of the rampaging lunatic, but unfortunately there is no such minimum standard.
In fact, he was under no obligation to move away from her at all. It seems obvious to me that he was moving slowly because even though she was annoying the hell out of him, he was enjoying pushing her buttons, and that's fine. I don't blame him, and again, she has nobody to blame for that but herself. He was under no obligation to sprint away at top speed like OJ Simpson racing through an airport – he was making a halfhearted but nevertheless deliberate effort to move away from her, and even that was more than she had a right to expect of him.
Of course I expected that in order for you to try to make a point you would flip it over to something ludicrous at the opposite extreme. He could have just stopped talking and kept walking. He could have kept talking and not made any lewd gestures. He could have stood his ground and just argued with her. All those things would have been okay, but he chose to make a sexually lewd remark and reinforce it with his gestures to make sure she knew what he was talking about.
Quote:
He may have, may not have. I couldn't tell, but certainly won't argue that he didn't.
Looks to me like you are doing a pretty good attempt at it. But especially if you think the Constitution gives you the right to, then that's the main disconnect we are having.
But his name wasn't Mr. Mongous. I would have been okay with him saying "none of your **** business." But he didn't. Strange how you make up hypotheticals right after you tell me you were only speaking of what happened in the video.
Agreed.
That is all true, but it still doesn't give the right to the guy to escalate the situation by making a sexually lewd reference to his penis. That is the only thing you can't reconcile.
You are mistaken. If he wants to call himself Hugh Mungus, that is his name. He can use that name if he wants. As long as there is no intent to defraud, you can go by any name you want. People do it all the time. Just ask my friend Richard (Dick) or Elizabeth (Libby).
At about 1:58 he says "I said I'm Hugh Mongous" than he looks down and says repeats "It's Hugh Mongous...I'm Hugh Mongous."
It's hard to make out. At this stage the guy's not unreasonably flustered. He made a throwaway - lamish joke (he had already been intruded upon) and it was responded to in a completely overwrought and paranoid manner. There's nothing sexual, unless you chose to read it in - in the pun Hugh Monguous. If there's a victim here, it's clearly him. As also are the security guys, camera guy - obviously all of them 'terrible oppressors'. Absurd.
You are mistaken. If he wants to call himself Hugh Mungus, that is his name. He can use that name if he wants. As long as there is no intent to defraud, you can go by any name you want. People do it all the time. Just ask my friend Richard (Dick) or Elizabeth (Libby).
That would have been fine had he not made it clear he was referring to his manhood after that.
So its ok for a man to make a crass/lewd comment about his genitals to a woman but it isn't ok for her to be confrontational with him?
Start off confrontationaly, then expect to be confronted in return.
The Golden Rule, remember?
Quote:
So if she is rude and confrontational (she had actually turned away when he engaged her, he spoke to her first at least on video), she deserves to be spoken to in a way that, hopefully, most men wouldn't dream of talking to a woman?
I am not following this logic.
It's simple and straightforward:
If you start something by being nasty, then expect to get nasty in return.
It's hard to make out. At this stage the guy's not unreasonably flustered. He made a throwaway - lamish joke (he had already been intruded upon) and it was responded to in a completely overwrought and paranoid manner. There's nothing sexual, unless you chose to read it in - in the pun Hugh Monguous. If there's a victim here, it's clearly him. As also are the security guys, camera guy - obviously all of them 'terrible oppressors'. Absurd.
Obviously she took it that way. Who wants to have some woman scream out that she was sexually harassed by them in a public place? I sure don't. That's why I don't go around telling women I'm Hugh Mongous while looking at my junk. My guess is most reasonable men don't either.
He was a jack arse. I could tell what he did by his body posture. Maybe as a woman, its something I am more sensitive to.
He stopped and asked if she wanted his name. He started the engagement. She was acting out and making a huge fuss, but he isn't hands clean either. It was 2 kids acting out.
She was rude and confrontational. He should have started shouting for help as soon as she started stalking him. Violent people like that woman are dangerous. He was fortunate that security personnel were on site to distract her.
No. The Constitution, as you so condescendingly tried to point out earlier, does not give you the right to make sexually lewd comments to people.
You don't know what you're talking about. It absolutely does do exactly that, up until the point where someone crosses the line and violates a local ordinance or state statute, or rises to something that is actionable through a civil suit. Which clearly did not happen here - or are you arguing that it did? If so, please explain why. Explain why saying "I'm Hugh Mongous" and making a vague gesture violates the United States Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
Of course I expected that in order for you to try to make a point you would flip it over to something ludicrous at the opposite extreme. He could have just stopped talking and kept walking. He could have kept talking and not made any lewd gestures. He could have stood his ground and just argued with her. All those things would have been okay, but he chose to make a sexually lewd remark and reinforce it with his gestures to make sure she knew what he was talking about.
Yes, he could have. But he chose not to. And that's his business. He has the right to make that decision. It was not very mature of him to make that decision, but again he has the right to do that.
Once again, for about the 6th or 7th time, you are claiming that someone does not have the right to display socially inappropriate behavior. You seem to be living in some bizarre fantasy world where it is illegal for people to be offensive. I keep asking you to explain why you think that, but you keep refusing to answer that question. I'll ask again - in plain language, will you please explain why you think people do not have the right to engage in socially inappropriate behavior? Simple question. Will you answer it this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian
Looks to me like you are doing a pretty good attempt at it. But especially if you think the Constitution gives you the right to, then that's the main disconnect we are having.
So no matter how clearly i word something, or how many times I repeat it, you either ignore it or insist I said something else. Iin addition to being completely ignorant of the Constitution, you apparently can't read either. Or perhaps it's just that you don't want to read anything that makes you question what you believe. Either way, it's becoming embarrassing watching you go through these contortions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure.
I would have been okay with him saying "none of your **** business." But he didn't. Strange how you make up hypotheticals right after you tell me you were only speaking of what happened in the video.
