Show us where that is within the law and he has to comply.
For those caught on private property. Otherwise blame the law.
Nice dodge of the example I gave and trying to put words into my mouth.
"Have you been subjected to the same so that you would know? Have you had your head plastered onto a naked body or a picture taken in your private residence in a way that you would not be seen in public? When someone has a picture taken of them in a changing room not even naked with a cheap camera they can describe it as feeling violated and raped and everyone cries sexual predator but someone constantly being stalked and subjected to telescopic lenses somehow doesn't get afforded the same. "
I don't see how that is relevant. Maybe I have been subject to ridicule and then so what? Or maybe not. Maybe I've had private property stolen with personal things on it and had strangers enter my house, strangers who could have shot me? I'm not denying this. So what? That was nowhere like rape. It would be if one of these people actually made physical contact with me and managed to get the better of me. But so what? Celebs are usually not raped either, and if they are, then the comparison of rape to rape is appropriate.
Secondly, I guess the intent is different. The sexual predator is out there to cause sexual harm, either on purpose or not. A paparazzo is not there to do that, but to take pictures.
Likewise a paparazzo is more socially acceptable. That also conditions us what is and what is a greater transgression. A cop or a prosecutor may ask you personal questions and you may answer with more stress than when a doctor or a friendly journalist asks you the same. Context is key. And of course the exposure. Everyone is subject to reporters especially people who do this for much of their time, they give interviews and get photographed all the time.
Again the dictionary includes more than one or two meanings. It doesn't have to refer to forests if not referring to sexual rape to be a valid use.
Context. Modern usage. As many people raised this issue except me you may find that they got the meaning associated with the most commonly used term and that is holding a woman down against her will and shoving one's member into one of her orifices with or without physical threats or other physical contact.
And we know what the meaning of those qualifications are. It's also used to denote a demeaner and seriousness about a cause rather than to suggest they are homicidal murderers like the German Nazis.
The Nazis were quite extraordinary as homicidal murderers. They stood out. On the other hand they are not the only serious people about and certainly not the only people who were fanatical. Like it or not, this makes Nazis more homely especially for less historically literate people - as more and more people are.
And again you are ignoring what I said and making it up instead. I never said that money is a measure of talent but it is generally the case that where more talent is required the pay is also better. Dodging the main question again.
You asked: "
You said it. Would you be comfortable with less money and choose a job where your talent will be wasted? Somehow I don't think you'll answer affirmatively and agree that it's a standard we should accept."
That's a loaded question which assumes that a job with less money is a job where my talent will be underutilised. So why should I walk into your trap? No. I don't believe for a second that talent must always go with pay. We know that there are excellent actors who don't look as well or draw in the numbers and so get paid less. Likewise we know that not only the best paying jobs allow for best self expression in terms of talent. Art is not better if it is more expensive, and show business is not always art. And personally I could earn 10x the money I earn now if I emigrated but I stay in SA for family reasons. My talents would be better utilised elsewhere in terms of remuneration but on the other hand I think the local people I work with also gain a lot as do I here.
Again deflecting I see. Does SARS stalk you in the same way as paparazzi would following your every move both in professional and personal life or is it simply the case that the law subscribes certain obligations and if you don't comply with them and they become aware of it they institute an investigation and audit?
Yes. SARS can throw you in prison where you can get raped and lose custody of your children. You may never be hired again because people consider you a criminal with a record or at least even if no criminal record follows, you may still be considered an untrustworthy person.
And you're trying to throw in some special pleading in here saying that the analogy has to be according to your standard to hold. A celeb caught by a paparazzo is the same as a rape victim who was penetrated and threatened with death or maybe even assaulted physically as well, but SARS is different because of an arbitrary reason. Come on.
. People should relax a bit
