Black Caesar
Active Member
Not a surprise The church's majority audience is women. Once they get the women, then the women force the religion to the children.
Is This Pastor Groping Ariana Grande?
- Thread starter TheNightKing
- Start date
Not a surprise The church's majority audience is women. Once they get the women, then the women force the religion to the children.
1. Who stated or where did you see me state that there's no foul in what occurred?
2. I definitely never said her being shocked made what he did any more acceptable but I assume that was just an overall summation not actually referring to me saying anything of the sort.
3. HOW can you see she was scared though? She LOOKED like she could be scared. She LOOKED like she could be surprised. She LOOKED like she could be in shock at his corny joke. She LOOKED like she could be a myriad of things but unlike all the other body language experts here and on social media, I'm not going to claim for a fact what or how she was feeling or looked in that moment.
Has she stated on some platform or interview about how she felt in that moment? If not then I'd rather wait for her to let us know this before I turn into a "white knight" trying to defend her honor because "we can see" she was supposedly scared. I'd rather wait to hear from her but that's just me.
Yet despite clear and unarguable meaning with regard to words in various languages ...that doesn't necessarily correlate with body language since various indicators do not always mean what you think or want to think it means as it may come across to you. So that's not exactly a great comparison.
Pretty sure in no post of mine on here did I state, indicate or imply that I believed or though the aforementioned religious head didn't cross a boundary in his actions. Feel free to let me know when or where I stated otherwise. So no, there's no attempt on my part to feign ignorance as to his crossing a boundary. Hope that helps.
My point still stands. His actions were wrong. I believe they were unintentional but stupid regardless. I also won't try to speak for Ariana Grande as to how she felt, her body language, etcetera like you and plenty others have chosen to do as if she's not fully capable of expressing herself and letting everyone know her discontentment, shock, nervousness,(whatever else she may have felt) in that distasteful situation.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
So you think he was wrong, he says he was wrong, her body language communicates discomfort and shock, but you can't make any inference about how she felt?
Look at the facts and walk me through your thinking, because that looks like willful ignorance to me
word on the street is that that bishop/pastor is known for being super extra when he got a huge audience
what makes it even creepier is when he mentioned his young daughter telling him about her, then he proceeds to continue pulling her towards him
what makes it even creepier is when he mentioned his young daughter telling him about her, then he proceeds to continue pulling her towards him
Her body language might communicate shock AS TO THE CORNY JOKE...but sure let's infer that it could only be to his arm around her. Yup, nothing else is possible.
Willful ignorance because I refuse to make any inference about how she felt? Do you actually know what that means or you just decided to sprinkle it in? I believe the use of facts would have to be involved in order for that term to apply and you have no actual, factual proof that she was uncomfortable. Your first sentence, the third statement isn't actually a fact, boss. If she says she was uncomfortable and in shock then there you go. Other than that then it's just you and the other knights as well as body language experts rushing to conclude what her body language indicated and boxing that up as fact.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
The third a statement is a fact. Body language has meaning, just like words. The fact so many people view it that way, apparently, even her fiancé Pete Davidson, is not really up for debate.
Your view is flawed because even if she says she was or was not scared, that technically does not make it true. People lie and misspeak all the time. Often, actions speak louder than words.
It's widely understood that most human communication is nonverbal.
Huh? How is the third statement a fact just because body language has meaning? Is it universal meaning that can be interpreted uniformly by any and everyone who understands it?
That's hilarious to say it's not really up for debate because "so many people view it that way, apparently even her fiancé Pete Davidson". A majority of people coming to a conclusion on what an act might mean still doesn't in any form or fashion of the word make it a fact. It's still conjecture. (And of course one would expect Pete Davidson to be enraged at what occurred, that is understandable).
So in conclusion you're saying... what YOU ALL say is true as opposed to what she says IF she says she wasn't scared amirite?
I mean people lie and misspeak and often actions speak louder than words but I'm pretty sure not in this context when her actions could have been a response to more than one thing...which is indisputably a fact.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
Verbal communication doesn't even have universally shared interpretations, while body language is easily more universal than verbal. Your refusal to acknowledge what is visible in the image and video is hilarious. Stranger groped her breast and she's not in shock.
Where do you find these folks Goldie?
Where do you find these folks Goldie?
I'm pretty sure the majority of verbal communication in a particular language is interpreted uniformly universally. Of course there are variances at times with certain words in certain dialects and countries that speak a particular language but the majority is still interpreted similarly.
Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that there was more than one problematic issue she could be reacting to would be hilarious but for the fact that it's the norm by y'all nowadays to leap straight to a conclusion and infer what someone might have thought or been reacting to without them actually letting it be known. Stranger also made a corny, insulting joke and she could be in shock at that.
I'm pretty sure Goldie ain't looking for folks to join this here board. I would ask where all these body language experts on here came from but obviously that's what y'all be doing nowadays. It is what it is.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
That sounds like exaggeration. How can you prove that most spoken language is interpreted identically among individuals? The current political landscape suggests that people will disagree over all kinds of different words and what they mean. On this very site, there have been conflicting views on what words mean, ranging from socialism, toxic masculinity, and various slurs.
This idea that language has an objective basis is not at all accepted by most people. If language did have universal meaning, then all these arts majors, like the journalists, philosophers, historians, and literature analysts, would not be viewed so negatively since there would actually be objectivity in their work. However, that's widely understood not to be the case, so please enlighten me how you came to your view that it is.
As for this idea that his joke was the cause of her reaction, his joke was not nearly as abrasive as him grabbing her breast. If a man made a similar joke, or groped your junk, which would get the bigger reaction from you?
Last edited:
Oh I'm the one exaggerating now? How about that.
I'm pretty sure that the disagreements in this current political landscape have wayyyyy less to do with interpretations of all kinds of different words and what they mean but more so to do with increased opposition to the stances being held by both sides of the aisle, a failure to bridge the divide as well as inflammatory rhetoric but sure keep thinking it has all to do with what specific words mean lol.
I don't know what people on this very site have conflicting views on as I tend to prefer other sections and threads as opposed to the ones that involve arguments regarding what Socialism, toxic masculinity and various slurs mean. Nevertheless, if people are legitimately arguing about the meaning of socialism or what it involves then perhaps they need a dictionary, encyclopedia or actual textbook.
So I'm going to have to say that I'm not quite sure where you got the viewpoint that "all these art majors- Jounalists, philosophers, historians and literature analysts" are viewed negatively. That also requires further parsing on a micro level as to why they would be because I'm quite sure it has less to do with lack of objectivity in their work but rather... several other reasons ranging from long held occupational beliefs and how they relate to socio-economic status, etc. Feel free to find a significant amount of work that states that language has no objective basis ...and such an idea or thought process is accepted by most people. You won't.
I'll bridge the gap for you. Language has both objective and subjective components so to say it has no objective basis is beyond silly and possibly stupid. To say it has no subjective basis at all would be idiotic on my part which is why I never claimed that.
Can you definitively say that her looking back at other people on the stage wasn't from his joke as opposed to where his hand was...since both occurred almost simultaneously? Has little to do with which would get the bigger reaction from me but perhaps she reacted to his joke and then felt where his hand was afterward? Is that not possible? Or we're just sticking with your conclusion about her reaction because nothing else could be remotely possible right? Alright then.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
I never said that contemporary politics "has all to do with what specific words mean". You just exaggerated the strength and breadth of what I said to make it sounds less believable. If you exaggerated there, why is it unbelievable to consider that you are exaggerating elsewhere?
Dictionaries often offer different definitions. If words have universal meaning, why would authoritative texts have different views?
Language has no objective basis. If there is an apple, that apple has the same weight for everyone. Mass is a property of the apple itself. If I have a word, that word can literally mean anything. You can't point to me where the meaning exists in the word. The meaning is superimposed onto the word as a result of mental processes. It does not exist in the object. What word has a meaning that is not a product of subjective psychological phenomena? If you can point to me where the universal meaning is inside of a word, I'll make a thread hailing you as my superior and you can have my daughter's hand in marriage and three goats.
I never said her reaction is 100% for certain due to his grabbing her bosom. I'm not sure anything, other than math, is actually certain. But if "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" then your view is unconvincing. The illusion of objectivity in language comes from a shared subjective understanding of what words mean. We have that same shared meaning with body language. If you would believe her words, you have just as much reason to believe her behaviour.
SeaSnake
OG
This is not a thing among lbgqt people