Same girl, she made two separate videos afterward to clear Andrew's name. If you watch the extended version of the video, that goes beyond the "sexual violence" the girl is making fun of Andrew for being "weak" and not going harder on her.
Now that you know this, if you require the actual videos go look youtube/rumble (might not be on youtube). Then you have a moral obligation to Truth to undo any lies/damage you may have done in ignorance. (This is true whenever we discover the Truth, not just on this subject.).
You do not address what I said, that the original video does not show who the woman is, its biscuit tin quality.
Any moral obligations I might have are not for you to define or remind me of, and for any lies I wrote, my conscience about them is none of your business, look after your own before you try to take charge of the conscience of anyone else.
IOW anyone who disagrees with you is a utter moral scoundrel. You can't deny that the female in the first video is unidentifiable so you seethe and scream at me as i have the temerity to answer you back. Are you in love with Mr Tate?
I do care if you have an utter disregard for Truth.
Are you in love with Mr Tate?
No. I don't know Mr. Tate. I love Truth.
As far as the video is concerned. And ignoring the fact that the woman came forward TWICE to let everyone know it was consensual. Lets use some common sense. The woman is wearing lingerie in the video. The camera is centered on the action. Which happens to be on a bed.
If this was spontaneous non-consensual activity; she most likely wouldn't be wearing lingerie. There would be no camera around, let alone centered on the bed they were on.
So not only do you have no regard for Truth you're an idiot.
Same girl, she made two separate videos afterward to clear Andrew's name. If you watch the extended version of the video, that goes beyond the "sexual violence" the girl is making fun of Andrew for being "weak" and not going harder on her.
Now that you know this, if you require the actual videos go look youtube/rumble (might not be on youtube). Then you have a moral obligation to Truth to undo any lies/damage you may have done in ignorance. (This is true whenever we discover the Truth, not just on this subject.).
You do not address what I said, that the original video does not show who the woman is, its biscuit tin quality.
Any moral obligations I might have are not for you to define or remind me of, and for any lies I wrote, my conscience about them is none of your business, look after your own before you try to take charge of the conscience of anyone else.
IOW anyone who disagrees with you is a utter moral scoundrel. You can't deny that the female in the first video is unidentifiable so you seethe and scream at me as i have the temerity to answer you back. Are you in love with Mr Tate?
I don't care if you disagree with me.
I do care if you have an utter disregard for Truth.
No. I don't know Mr. Tate. I love Truth.
As far as the video is concerned. And ignoring the fact that the woman came forward TWICE to let everyone know it was consensual. Lets use some common sense. The woman is wearing lingerie in the video. The camera is centered on the action. Which happens to be on a bed.
If this was spontaneous non-consensual activity; she most likely wouldn't be wearing lingerie. There would be no camera around, let alone centered on the bed they were on.
So not only do you have no regard for Truth you're an idiot.