(August 13, 2018 at 2:38 am)Tizheruk Wrote:Quote:Well that's a different claim to what you said.Not really
Quote:In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence.Accept as Rev points out that's pretty much what he's implying
He says "I think the issue of complicitness......"
Quote:He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.Directly no (i'll point out that i didn't say he said it was okay ) but clearly implying in his word salad way he's saying that she bears some of the blame for being "sexually provocative"
This is a quote by you....
Quote:He's also said women who wear makeup should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault
The claim has now changed from him saying something to he's implied something.
The claim has also changed from he's saying "Women who wear make up should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault." to a different claim that he's made an implication that she bears some of the blame for being sexually provocative.
So yes the claim has obviously changed and for this other claim you'd still have to explain where the implication is.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.