>>64500843 The waterfall scene at the end was weird and nonsensical (yes I know what it's referencing) I don't think they should of added the modern day bits and tied it in with the series they should of made it stand alone
>>64500843 >somehow thinking that dressing women up as the KKK on some retardedly convoluted level would appease SJWs >fourth wall breaking >it was all a dream and I was on drugs >crossdressing No offence but it was retarded.
>>64501067 I guess it makes sense if it's considered from the point of view that everything is happening in Sherlock's brain and in dreams people don't always realize details in a dream state, but it would have been much better at least in my opinion, if they hadn't tried so hard to shoehorn it into the modern series three quarters of the way through, especially with the periods of 'waking up'.
>The moral of the story is that it's okay to kill men if they lie to a woman
>The entire fucking mystery - which directly caused the deaths of three people - is because some guy lied to a woman about marrying her >Not even rape, or threats, or physical harm. A lie. She got tricked >Everyone suddenly starts spouting about how they 'have to win' because they're somehow right in this
How do you even justify this shit? Was there some plot point I missed?
>>64501603 >Homosexuals are psychopaths >Women are KKK murdering radicalists >It's ok to kill men for no reason whatsoever because women feel offended >Transgenders only exist because they feel insecure about themselves >Irene isn't bisexual, she only wants dick >Adaptation of the Five Pip Problem is somehow more triggering than the original BRAVO MOFFAT R A V O
>>64500843 I think im dropping this show after this ep
>1,5 h filler episode... >Laced with feminist propaganda...sig...i cant even get away from this shit in my entertainment?...fuck it im Joining #gamergate >Those things aside...ep was still boring as fuck
Not just you, there was some clear feminist agenda stuff ("this is a war we have to lose", "there's an entire secret society of women who murder oppressive men but we'll let it slide and won't arrest anyone because they're underprivileged")
Also I swear to fuck if moff actually does bring moriarty back alive after this entire episode trying to establish that he's dead
>>64502584 >The show desperately needs some new writers, because this was the laziest attempt at a episode so far I personally think this is the beginning of the end of that show, every episode from now on is going to have yo have some social commentary that aligns with social justice....They just broke that wall, so there can only be more of it in the future.
Next ep >Sherlock goes to dreamworld again, and investigates a murder at a cottonfarm during the days of the slavetrade. >Turns out the white slaveowners wife and one of the slaves killed him, but it was ok because he was a horribel person, Sherlock agrees to pin the murder on the areas competing cottonfarmer, whos an even more evil white man >Sherlock and Watson both turn to the camera look straight at it and say "slavery is wrong, and you should feel bad" >The End >Wait 3 years gor next ep
>>64500992 There were only three episodes in season 2 and s2e3 The Reichenbach Fall is objectively the peak of the show It divebombed super hard in S3 by not even bothering to explain how sherlock survived ("what's the point, you'll just be disappointed anyway :^)") and way WAY too much tumblr fanbase pandering
The special was an improvement but it still had a bit too much of an agenda and relied too much on special effects with the doctor who tier fake waterfall and moriarty's CGI blown out head, the show has always been at its best when it doesn't need to rely on scene compositing special effects (those visual things to show text messages are fine, not a CGI wolf)
There were a few really great scenes this episode, but also some really obnoxious shit (in other words, typical Sherlock)
Good: >Refreshing, they do a good job with era-appropriate Sherlock on the whole >The initial mystery and set-up was actually really cool >the "scary" bits weren't cringeworthy >dialogue is as sharp as ever
Bad: >Moriarty appeared, in excess, for literally no reason. I fucking hate Andrew Scott. He's dead. He had nothing to do with the plot. >Lines like "Wear the damn hat, you're Sherlock Holmes." A few tongue-in-cheek, meta-humor zingers are fine, but they did way too many in this episode. >Overt feminist pandering kind of lessened the impact of the "reveal" >The back-and-forth structure didn't work for me. I would have prefered a standalone mystery set in the past. >what the FUCK was with those transitions?
>>64502996 >>Lines like "Wear the damn hat, you're Sherlock Holmes." A few tongue-in-cheek, meta-humor zingers are fine, but they did way too many in this episode.
>the promo stuff makes it seem like era appropriate Holmes wearing era appropriate clothes like the Granada Series did >the usage of that bit in the teasers made it seem like theyd make a joke to Holmes stereotypical outfit >instead he just wears that outfit all the time anyway even in the city
that line was literally pointless. he was wearing that outfit for most of the episode anyway, and that was even without going to the countryside
>>64502929 Blacker the Berry is more about black on black violence and false pride. They should rather opt for something from Watch the Throne or go for Alright if they want to depict something from Kendrick that deals with white one black violence.
>Feminist Cultist create a legend about a ghost to scare the patriarchy >Uses this legend murder whoever they feel deserves to die >Sherlock is somehow just fine with this, and says "This is a war we must loose, lets just let them keep doing what they are doing"
Was i really tired when i watched this last night or did this just happen? I thought /tv/ was just meming again when i heard about this ep
to be fair, while on the whole it all kind of sucked and the ending was all ridiculous, I kind of liked the idea that if the thought of moriarty in his brain eats away at him, the thought of watson does the opposite. the whole "Moriarty is the virus and watson the antivirus was stupid, but it was kind of cute.
>that another show about detective in a modern London >first season was in 2010 >like in Sherlock >second in 2012 >like in Sherlock >third in 2013 >uh >fourth in winter 2015-2016 >uh like Sherlock's special
>>64503144 I don't want to meme it out or go into silly roleplay arguments about politics you wouldn't dare speak of in real life because you don't actually believe them wholeheartedly, but I was referring to police brutality or institutionalized violence perceived by the black community.
>>64501448 >The moral of the story is that it's okay to kill men if they lie to a woman
I don't think there was a moral to the story. It was an excuse to do Victorian-era with a fig-leaf of investigating whether Moriarty could have faked his death and a pro-feminist message tacked on somewhat clumsily. The actual confrontation is a bit of Holmes's speechifying and then Moriarty shows up again.
If you read the original stories, Holmes lets a couple of murderers go free - including a woman who'd been blackmailed by Milverton and winds up shooting him in the face.
>>64503279 Pretty much how I felt. Sherlock having his mind palace and being able to simulate "experiments" there is a very neat idea. Dream within a dream got really fucking tired though, however since he OD'ed, I can sort of accept it.
I might have become a fanboy and now try to defend shit writing by poor reasoning. Oh well, we won't have new episodes until next year anyway.
>>64503340 >After researching the FBI numbers for "Suicide of a Superpower," this writer concluded: "An analysis of 'single offender victimization figures' from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."
>Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse. i know tumblrinas get off on rape fantasies and defend the most violent agressive men but cmon
>>64502889 >How is the fall and the dream are connected? Sherlock needed to wake up through the fall?
I don't think it was a connection as such, just a sort of cheeky callback to the handwaving of how exactly he survived the fall from the roof. They never actually said, so here, they have Holmes make a little reference to "knowing how to do this" without specifying what he's doing. It was a mythology gag, sort of.
>>64503145 >Reichenbach Fall is the legitimate best episode
>the scene on the top of the building is without a doubt one of the best moments of television this decade
I felt like they fudged it a bit. Like they had too much of a sense of its own epicness. It's not that it was bad, but I didn't think it was nearly as good as it could have been. Too much Moffatian bathos.
They're from years ago now, he shut down his twitter
Moffat's the special kind of cuck where he believes in the feminist ideology and tries to convey it through his writing but feminists endlessly shit on him for not doing it right, I'm amazed he hasn't given up on it yet
>>64503836 >Watson is female >Moriarty is female >Mrs. Hudson is transgender It's literal tumblr bait show.
And he way Sherlock solves mysteries is just as retarded as in BBC Sherlock >Judging by these burns on the fingers which could have only been caused by an old prewar radiator and the distinctive smell of Ethiopian food spice, the kidnapper must be hiding here...
Yeah, you were definitely born in the wrong generation. Nobody maintains the standards anymore! Words are permitted to have colloquial meanings! Meanings which differ from the ACTUAL meaning, the one listed in the dictionary BEFORE the colloquial one, which is how you know it's the PROPER meaning! That wouldn't have happened in 1975.
>>64503007 I remember this one story, a true story, about an elderly woman who was walking to the store. A ruffian, some youth ran up to her and "hit" her in the back. She kind of fell over than got back up. He ran off and she thought nothing of it. She walked to the store and her shoulder was hurting her something fierce, but she just walked on, and into the store and around for a while. THEN THE CLERK RAN UP AND SAID OH SHIT ARE YOU OKAY FUCK FUCK FUCK CALL AN AMBERLAMPS
>>64504323 Someone jabbed me really hard in the shoulder with something in mid conversation and I didn't feel it at all, and the guys around me were like wtf and thought I was trying to be an edgelord when I said I legitimately didn't feel anything.
>>64503007 >People don't notice when they've just been knifed in the kidney People don't even notice being shot though. In fact, the only reason people fall down and shit when you shoot them anywhere but in the head region is because they think they're supposed to. Getting stabbed and shot is so abrupt and intense that your body doesn't even know how to process it at first and by the time it does, shock will likely have put all of that on the backburner anyway.
>>64504841 >forgives his wife and doesn't walk out on her even though she's broken all his trust and could probably even get an annulment from a Catholic Church because the marriage was made under false pretenses it was that fucking horrible
>>64504992 >most of 4chan should be slightly intimidated just by the fact that he's a doctor (never mind crimefighter, war vet, writer etc dude is like a caricature dream doctor husband except not beta bux like irl doctors tend to be
the only downside is the way Freeman presents himself (seriously, that amount of test doing that shit would make him doc savage)
>>64505167 >Why are men allowed to age and still be respected we're supposed to think that woman is entitled to be seen as one's high school sweetheart now? since when are men entitled to that "respect"?
>>64502857 >I personally think this is the beginning of the end of that show, every episode from now on is going to have yo have some social commentary that aligns with social justice....They just broke that wall, so there can only be more of it in the future.
I'm pretty sure they are just insanely self-aware of the tumblr-fandom. It was pretty apparent in s3e1 when they shot that made-up kissing scene on the rooftop. I guess they just think the show is more popular with women than men.
I have to point out that it's insanely out of character for Sherlock Holmes to let MURDER slide for a greater political cause. He doesn't give a shit about social or political inequalities. In the last 3 seasons he was oblivious to them because they were pointless for his investigations.
>>64505411 It was even more out of character for Sherlock Holmes to murder a guy who he just found out hadn't really committed a crime at all but was really smart and was really just doing the same thing Sherlock does except with the roles reversed
also >"he's a white supremacist, who cares" >"oh ok sherlock i won't put up an argument ha ha whats the hippocratic oath lmao i dont have a character"
>>64502841 >>64502841 >Not just you, there was some clear feminist agenda stuff ("this is a war we have to lose", "there's an entire secret society of women who murder oppressive men but we'll let it slide and won't arrest anyone because they're underprivileged")
It was pretty fucking weak but there no reason to think Homes wouldn't of gotten 'em all hung if the dream hadn't collapsed on them.
>>64505596 >Sherlock and the attack of the feminists. Steven has been criticised for being sexist in the past. the episode was just a way of him saying he isn't. load of bullshit
Pretty much. What's annoying but is Watson rightfully guesses it's radical feminists five minutes in and it's still treat as a big surprise.
>>64502857 >>64505564 >>64505498 >Next ep >>Sherlock goes to dreamworld again, and investigates a murder at a cottonfarm during the days of the slavetrade. >>Turns out the white slaveowners wife and one of the slaves killed him, but it was ok because he was a horribel person, Sherlock agrees to pin the murder on the areas competing cottonfarmer, whos an even more evil white man
Ummm… Doesn't some thing like that more or less literally happen in one of the original stories?
>>64505498 my point is that Sherlock's deductive reasoning would have told him that literally murdering men to further the feminist cause is absolutely fucking retarded. He's a guy who trusts almost no one with their power due to the vast majority of people being dumber than him. Why the fuck would he trust a bunch of housewives to selectively kill men for their social cause?
The only reason I'm not really mad about them is that Sherlock at the end says that none of it makes sense and Moriarty tells him its because he made it all up. Sherlock himself acknowledged how stupid the entire scenario was. Which made the whole thing worse in another way because it was like we were robbed a real mystery. Nothing makes sense and it was hand waved with lolitsadream so that the last half hour could be nonsensical meta-humor.
>2012 what a simpler time Meanwhile in 2015 we had an old white man regenerate into a younger black woman on doctor who, undoubtedly setting the precedent for when the next doctor is and woman and/or black
>>64506033 >It was justified cause the women of that age did not have equal rights Please tell me this person is from /tv/ and just trolling? the idea that we have cucks that belive women have the right to murder men is just scary
Moff's strange, one week he can somehow shit out a piece of gold that's almost universally regarded as one of the best episodes of doctor who ever (peter capaldi on his own for a solid 45 minutes, it was legitimately amazing and you should go watch that one) and the next week he can completely shit the bed and piss everyone off by not only doing that regeneration (which to be fair most people don't really care much about) but also giving clara her very own tardis
>>64506318 The best part? Her chameleon arch gets broken too and her tardis is stuck looking like an american diner
>>64506325 Heaven Sent, go and watch it. It's technically the second part of a loose three parter, but all you need to know going into it is that in the previous episode clara dies after her attempt of a clever plan backfires on her and the doctor is sent away as part of a trap
That one's not the best representation of his character, but first episodes of a new doctor usually aren't. They instantly ditched the 'accept the old man' after his first episode and he went straight into fitting the role perfectly. The basic Capaldi essentials are Listen, Mummy on the Orient Express, Flatline and Heaven Sent. S8 particularly (and S9 also to an extent) has much more of an ongoing character story than previous serieses, the adventures are still all separate but it's basically a character drama where you see how the doctor and clara both change over the course of the series. It's easy enough to pick up what has happened in episodes prior to that point, but keep that in mind in case a couple things don't make perfect sense
For what it's worth clara never had much of a character or personality before S8. I'm the type that'd recommend just watching capaldi's era straight through without skipping episodes, I don't know if you have that sort of time though.
Not him, but I never watched it all and started just for Capaldi. A lot of it is awful shite, some bits are fun, almost exclusively Capaldi. If you can put up with a lot of naff shit (and you're in a Sherlock thread so I expect you can) and a lot of jaw-droppingly unearned Big Emotional Moments, then there's about enough in there to keep you going.
And the second last episode of the most recent season really is top-notch, easily the best of the two seasons, a whole other level.
If you're going to pick and choose, avoid Kill the Moon, Forest of the Night and Sleep No More. The latter two are almost unanimously regarded as the worst of their respective series, KTM's a little more mixed but still has a fair amount of distaste surrounding it
>>64507602 >>64507602 >>[Sir Eustace Carmichael] knew her out in the States. Promised her everything. Marriage, position, and then he *had his way with her*. And threw her over. >Sure sounds like rape to me.
That's not, though. That's nowhere near what rape is. Regretting sex or being lied to before or after the fact is not rape. Is it a dick move? sure, but it's not anywhere near grounds to murder -- nor is it grounds for everyone in the investigation to scream "WE HAVE TO LET THEM WIN THIS WURR, SHERLOCK!!"
>>64508642 >Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.
Except in this case the man didn't lie about himself or anything else. He didn't claim to be someone else or assume a position he didn't have. He promised her things in a relationship and then ended the relationship -- which is not illegal. What he did was morally wrong and reprehensible, but it wasn't rape.
>but what about the case in israel?? >However, it was later reported that the charge had actually been the result of a plea bargain with the defendant in what had originally been a rape-by-force case where the records were sealed by the judge to protect the identity of the victim and avoid the cross-examination of her.
>>64508819 >Except in this case the man didn't lie about himself or anything else.
>Promised her everything. Marriage, position, and then he *had his way with her*. And threw her over.
You're leaning into the interpretation of an honest change of mind because it suits your ideological predilections to do so. The creators are leaning into the interpretation of a deliberate deception because it suits their ideological predilections to do so. They dictate what actually happened in-universe; they win.
If you want to make that your head-canon, well, go for it. Don't expect anyone else to care.
>>64509021 even the part where he licks dust for no reason other than to say generic creepy line? and when he gets the gun and for some reason starts licking the barrel? I know a lot of it is down to the actor but some of it was just lazy writing
>>64508980 You've got me wrong, I completely agree that he was lying through his teeth, I just don't find that illegal.
Every case in your wikipedia article involves the aggressor lying about some critical aspect of their own character, not their intentions or future plans. If you used that in practiced law then it's an extremely slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
If I tell a girl at a bar I've got a yacht and I'll take her sailing next week, and we sleep together, is it rape by deception if I don't (or never intended to) take her? What if I was lying about the yacht? Does that make a difference? What if I tell the girl I'm looking to settle down, but I don't call back after the first night? Am I legally obligated to continue seeing her or else risk a case of retroactive rape? It's ridiculous.
She consented to him in that moment, completely sound of mind and unforced (according to the information we have). What happened after was regret.
>how do we write our contemporary version of Moriarty, Mark? >well we can't have him be intimidating, subtle elegant or genuinely disdainful of Holmes, he basically can't give off any air of a criminal mastermind whatsoever >instead, let's just make him a deranged, over-the-top homosexual that's having a hissy fit because Sherlock won't let him suck his cock >brilliant, the female fans'll love him
I liked that they made them more like how they were in the books and it was a good mistery and good episode overall... And then Sherlock woke up and all weht to shit with the speed of sound. Moffat strikes again.
>If I tell a girl at a bar I've got a yacht and I'll take her sailing next week, and we sleep together, is it rape by deception if I don't (or never intended to) take her? What if I was lying about the yacht? Does that make a difference? What if I tell the girl I'm looking to settle down, but I don't call back after the first night? Am I legally obligated to continue seeing her or else risk a case of retroactive rape?
Would you classify any of those things as rape. The only difference between those and what the guy in the episode did is scale.
He didn't lie about his character or identity. That's the only thin that was prosecuted in your own link. Backing out of shit you said you'd do after the fact is not rape, it's just being really shitty.
I go to a prostitute. I tell her "I'll give you a hundred pounds if you have sex with me!" We have sex. I don't pay her. I haven't lied about my character or identity; only my future actions. At the time of the sex she consented and was fully informed.
Two points and, I regret to say, no more replies for you, you young scallywag. First: We may reliably infer that this was a conscious deception and hence rape *by* deception by the simple fact that Sherlock Holmes is inclined to regard it as such. The pattern established by the show is not of Holmes inclining to moral error when pronouncing on the actions of clients, victims, perpetrators etc. Quite the reverse. We are not in a court of law determining actions in the real world; we are talking about fictional events within a created world, designed by their creators to instill certain sensations and impressions in the viewer. We can dispute those sensations and impressions, we can call them objectionable, we can even, in essence, pretend that the events are other than they're clearly intended to be (head-canon). But we mustn't expect that anyone should care or pay attention when we do that last thing. We mustn't expect that it matters that we're doing that.
Second point: the events in Victorian times occur within Holmes' mind palace. At various points within the series, characters within the mind palace have served as sounding-boards for his mulling-over of investigations he's conducting, problems he's facing. Who stands out, would you say, among the women present at the Klan-style thingamy? Surely it's Janine. The same Janine that Holmes wooed, fucked, proposed to, under false pretenses? Golly! Quite the coinky-dink, wouldn't ya think? If you REALLY want to undermine the general take-away implied by a surface reading of the episode, your best bet is to regard the entire solution concocted by Holmes, the entire pro-suffragette thing, as a manifestation of Holmes' guilt over his treatment of Janine.
>mental palace, designed by the dreamer >being disturbed by a dead guy who haunt the dreamer >got several layers and the last basically trap the dreamer for eternity >you can only leave by jumping off a cliff
How is that not fucking Inception with bullshit feminism?
I think I would have preferred they made it 2 episodes though, 1 doing what they did last week and confirming that Moriarty is indeed dead and the following episode back to modern times where we actually see what happens next after series 3. Rather than make us wait possibly a whole fucking year for the rest again.
>>64510208 >I go to a prostitute. I tell her "I'll give you a hundred pounds if you have sex with me!" We have sex. I don't pay her. I haven't lied about my character or identity; only my future actions. At the time of the sex she consented and was fully informed.
In a place where prostitution is legal this would be charged as a theft of services, since her given consent (and no denial of consent until afterwards) is not invalidated by you not paying afterwards.
>>64510208 >We may reliably infer that this was a conscious deception and hence rape *by* deception by the simple fact that Sherlock Holmes is inclined to regard it as such. >The character regards it as such and therefore it's true
That's completely ridiculous, and wasn't at all implied or stated in the show. He doesn't mention that he thinks it's rape - he just accepts her being spurned as proper motivation for double homicide.
>The same Janine that Holmes wooed, fucked, proposed to, under false pretenses? That's also something. By your definition, is Sherlock also a rapist? I notice you didn't reply to my question in the previous post.
>the entire pro-suffragette thing, as a manifestation of Holmes' guilt over his treatment of Janine.
It's not. The take-away of this scene doesn't have to do with the real sherlock's actions, it's a clear social commentary. That's also why the 'we must let them win this war' line is repeated ad infinitum throughout the episode, and why sherlock feels they're infallibly right (despite murdering two people).
Sherlock really isn't a smart enough to have a deep psychological plot point like this without overtly pointing it out so people will notice it. It's just not that kind of show. Sorry, anon.
The scene is an extremely obvious pander so fans will spread it along through social media -- it's a marketing move.
The reason people care now is that the message - intentionally or not - was "it's okay to murder a man if i'm a woman and they lie to me"
Why are tumblr gifs always a low framerate and oversaturated? Do people who make gifs for tumblr go to the effort of saturating the image and lowering the framerate themselves, or is it some kind of automatic tumblr filter?
I hadn't watched Sherlock before, but I was curious. I got to the bit where he's hitting the dead body and tells us all about Watsons back story before I stopped. It was a very painful 3 minutes or so.
>>64511026 >In a place where prostitution is legal this would be charged as a theft of services
He said, wrongly, in a wrong way that was wrong.
>Yesterday, a Canberra man by the name of Akis Livas, aged 52, was found guilty of rape for having pretended to pay a sex worker with an envelope stuffed with paper. He was sentenced to eight months jail with a two year good behaviour bond.
>Justice Penfold of the ACT Supreme Court held that the event was “clearly premeditated” and that it constituted “rape by fraud”. Justice Penfold felt that a prison sentence was necessary as the offender did not show remorse and “was still focused on the event as a commercial exercise.” >focused on the event as a commercial exercise
kek, you're actually displaying an attitude the judge held to aggravate the crime.
>>64511033 >people who make gifs for tumblr go to the effort of saturating the image and lowering the framerate themselves The saturation is tumblr's insanely basic idea of what is aesthetic, the framerate is probably some sort of shitty compression thing
>>64511290 >>focused on the event as a commercial exercise > >kek, you're actually displaying an attitude the judge held to aggravate the crime.
Yes, because you brought up a case in a country where prostitution is not legal and unrecognized by law, so it could fit your narrative. In places where brothels are legal and regulated, this doesn't actually fucking happen.
>Then you shouldn't have started arguing about it. You did, nimrod. My original post said that he didn't imply it was rape, or anything other than deception - which is the absolute truth. The only person twisting the narrative and establishing their own 'head-canon' on this has been you.
It's obvious that the authors don't consider it to be rape either -- if they did, sherlock would obviously be a rapist too, wouldn't he? But Janine in the show does not show any implication that she feels this way - her only cause of ire is with the deception of their relationship. You inferred this to be rape, the show did not.
See, I'm not the one twisting the intended narrative to fit their worldview. I'm also not the one acting like a pretentious gloating shitstain because they misread the other person humoring their points as them 'winning' the argument. Like, seriously? "He's right to worry"? You sound like you're in some cartoon, dude.
>>64511836 >Yes, because you brought up a case in a country where prostitution is not legal and unrecognized by law, so it could fit your narrative.
Wait - you're saying that if it were legal, it would stop being rape by fraud? Get a fucking grip, mate.
>You did, nimrod. My original post said that he didn't imply it was rape, or anything other than deception
Nah, you did, with some other guy. I came in here: >>64508642 (you can tell because both the prose style and the quality of the arguments improve significantly). "Not anything other than deception" is non-responsive to a charge of rape by deception. I will grant you that the word 'rape' isn't used, but there's a reason we're treated to "had his way with her".
>if they did, sherlock would obviously be a rapist too, wouldn't he? But Janine in the show does not show any implication that she feels this way - her only cause of ire is with the deception of their relationship
This is very far from obvious (and again, there is dialogue suggesting Janine and Holmes never had sex). And, again, there is no separating 'deception' from 'rape by deception'. You keep failing to properly consider the actual charge and defaulting to your own more narrow definition of rape.
>See, I'm not the one twisting the intended narrative to fit their worldview.
Of course you are. You're interpreting the events in a way that makes both Holmes and the creators look like moral cripples. We can assume fairly easily that that's not their intention.
So, just to recap: >you're wrong about rape by deception in the case of prostitution >you've been argued down to bare assertion in the case of the authors' intent (no reasoning) >you're proceeding on questionable assumptions regarding Janine >ignoring the questionable assumptions, you're failing to recognise that more than one level of meaning is possible and that a show need not be particularly clever for that to be so >you're getting pretty mad
>>64512191 >Wait - you're saying that if it were legal, it would stop being rape by fraud?
Yes. Because consent of a person who is clear of mind and not under duress cannot be revoked after the act. In any case, your ridiculous scenario wouldn't actually happen because legal places require you to sign an agreement and pay upfront.
>(and again, there is dialogue suggesting Janine and Holmes never had sex) Comes out his bedroom barely dressed and then hops into the shower with him. Of course they were only holding hands.
>And, again, there is no separating 'deception' from 'rape by deception'. You keep failing to properly consider the actual charge and defaulting to your own more narrow definition of rape.
People react differently to different crimes. There's a very clear difference between 'I feel this person broke my trust and lied to me' and 'i feel this person raped me'. The one scene between sherlock and her after the fact heavily leans towards one reaction. Guess which it is.
Also, yes, I do have a 'more narrow definition of rape'. It's also called the legal definition.
>You're interpreting the events in a way that makes both Holmes and the creators look like moral cripples.
Holmes is a moral cripple. He's a repeat drug user and a diagnosed sociopath. It might not be the writer's intention to have the scene have as crazy a message as it does, but that's still what it has.
Let's go through your shitty recap, for a minute. >You didn't prove shit >Moving goalposts when you hit a dead end and can't revoke someone's point is not 'arguing down' >Not assumptions. Look up. >It having an extra level of meaning doesn't make the first one any less ridiculous or inane. >You're propping yourself up with pseudo-intellectual smug oneliners so you can pretend you're 'winning' because you can't handle an argument like an adult
>>64512642 >Yes. Because consent of a person who is clear of mind and not under duress cannot be revoked after the act.
Neither consent nor absence of duress is relevant to the legality of prostitution. It's over, mate, you lost this one. Let it go.
>Of course they were only holding hands.
SH: I exploited the fact of our connection. J: When? SH: Hm? J: Just one would've been nice. SH: Oh. I was waiting until we got married.
>People react differently to different crimes.
Perfect victim bullshit. People react differently to different crimes, the same way to different crimes, differently to the same crimes. And this is still assuming they had sex, which is very questionable.
>It's also called the legal definition.
Of what jurisdiction? Not Canberra, this we know. Of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception#United_Kingdom
>It might not be the writer's intention
Again, your ideology inclines you to this interpretation. Bully for you.
>You are objectively wrong about the prostitution angle. Keep denying it, how deluded you want to look is your affair >quote my moved goalposts. Failure to do so in full constitutes unequivocal concession >You're the one who needs to look up. The definition of 'assumption', that is >I don't care if it's ridiculous or inane, I care if it's something other than your ideology-driven interpretation. It isn't >Oh you're getting SO mad, lol
>>64512963 >>Neither consent nor absence of duress is relevant to the legality of prostitution. It's over, mate, you lost this one. Let it go.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're not discussing the legality of prostitution.
>That conversation "Just one" what? Just one sex? Who even talks like that?
There's a scene where she comes out of his bedroom, in the morning, wearing his shirt and no pants. She then hops into the bathroom where he's taking a shower. There's a very clear implication.
You've brought up this 'ideology' angle a couple times. What kind of ideology do you think I'm coming from? Should I be forming a church or a party?
>You haven't proven once that not paying for legal prostitution would be treated as rape. You're the one that's wrong and can't back their shit up. >Here: >>64509741 and >>64510208. I ask a question for the second time and you bring up a non-answer about prostitution without addressing the question.
>"I'm definitely winning" >"I'm definitely skipping middle-school to shitpost on 4chan"
So, chalk up another win for me. Spotting a pattern?
>What kind of ideology do you think I'm coming from?
An anti-feminist one, but the specifics aren't important. Recall I said the creators have their own ideology. Everyone does.
>I ask a question for the second time and you bring up a non-answer about prostitution without addressing the question.
You're making the claim, burden's on you. You haven't even presented reasoning, you've just said. The judgement in the Canberra case didn't rest on the illegality, but on the part where he raped her by deceiving her.
>i am unequivocally conceding that at no point did you move any goalposts
>>64513458 >You've implied legality is relevant. It's not. You've lost this one, again. Waste your time if you like. Shit dude. you might want to take some classes in reading comprehension.
>So, chalk up another win for me. Spotting a pattern? >I'm winning lmao!!
I'm coming from an ideology where I think killing two people isn't morally justified by one person's deceit. I'm sorry if that isn't very feminist, anon.
The canberra case rested on illegality because it was not treated as a transaction. >Justice Penfold felt that a prison sentence was necessary as the offender did not show remorse and “was still focused on the event as a commercial exercise.” Learn to read your own shit, anon.
>Still incapable of answering that question. I'll wait. It must be hard, getting yourself rustled so much over it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.