Tomomi Itano to graduate from AKB48 this year (or, The "Minami-Minegishi-MUST-Stay-Celibate" Thread)

[smile72]

Except smoking is a public health concern. You know, second hand smoke and all. While it may be contestable, at least there's an understandable, reasonable justification there. As far as I know, "second hand sex" isn't doesn't exist - barring the easy masturbation joke.

Wow, answering without reading, not smoking at the company smoking at your own home. That's why you can get fired.
'

I'm sorry, but who the fuck doesn't buy an artist's work because they have consenting sex with a partner, and why the fuck are they being catered to?

Because they helped make the group a success, that's why.

 

[Foxi4]

America, America. Not Japan. Countries are different. I am not the expert of Pop. Yes, I know you're probably being sarcastic.

Gahars just put it better than me, and yes, I was being sarcastic.

America, Japan, Afghanistan or the North Pole, unjust treatment is just unjust. There are no variable standards when it comes to treating another human being like a human and allowing for personal space, it's that simple for me. Perhaps one day Japan too will learn that, but first we need to stop accepting such practices and start pointing out their flaws.

Wow, answering without reading, not smoking at the company smoking at your own home. That's why you can get fired.

Yes, if you smell of the smoke, affecting other people's lives (causing cravings/craving yourself as you work). If you hold Alcoholics Anonymous sessions when smelling of booze, of course someone will mind, smile.

 

[Gahars]

Wow, answering without reading, not smoking at the company smoking at your own home. That's why you can get fired.'

Wow, answering without thinking.

And a person smoking at home is just as addicted to the nicotine, which means their judgement might be impaired when it comes to, say, not bringing cigarettes to the place of employment (and, as Foxi points out, they would still carry the smell of the cigarettes). And, since you clearly missed this part...

While it may be contestable, at least there's an understandable, reasonable justification there.

 

[smile72]

Wow, answering without thinking.

And a person smoking at home is just as addicted to the nicotine, which means their judgement might be impaired when it comes to not bringing cigarettes to the place of employment. And, since you clearly missed this part...

And again, the case merely was they smoked at home, not that they brought the cigarettes in.

Gahars just put it better than me, and yes, I was being sarcastic.

America, Japan, Afghanistan or the North Pole, unjust treatment is just unjust. There are no variable standards when it comes to treating another human being like a human and allowing for personal space, it's that simple for me. Perhaps one day Japan too will learn that, but first we need to stop accepting such practices and start pointing out their flaws.
Yes, if you smell of the smoke, affecting other people's lives (causing cravings/craving yourself as you work). If you hold Alcoholics Anonymous sessions when smelling of booze, of course someone will mind, smile.

Alcohol and nicotine are not the same, yeah but that's Alcoholics Anonymous, not a company...I'm not sure if you sign something when you join one of those groups, but if you do, then you obey the rules of the group, the same goes for AKB48.

 

[Foxi4]

Alcohol and nicotine are not the same, yeah but that's Alcoholics Anonymous, not a company...I'm not sure if you sign something when you join one of those groups, but if you do, then you obey the rules of the group, the same goes for AKB48.

It was just an example. Your personal life should not affect your professional performance, your professional life should not affect the quality of your personal life. Two separate spheres.

But like I said, I've already stated my case here.

EDIT: This is completely unlike you - where did the fondness for stupid rules come from all of a sudden? What about homosexual marriges? They're not allowed in many states - that's a rule. It's a stupid rule. Are you going to follow it now, or will you question it?

Is it just me or is the fact that something's "weeboo" automatically mean that common sense no longer applies?

 

[smile72]

It was just an example. Your personal life should not affect your professional performance, your professional life should not affect the quality of your personal life. Two separate spheres.

But like I said, I've already stated my case here.

In this case your personal life and professional are no different due to paparazzi.

 

[Foxi4]

In this case your personal life and professional are no different due to paparazzi.

Paparazzi infringe upon your personal space and should be persecuted more often - it's one of the most disgusting professions in the world. It's no longer freedom of press when it's factually breaking the law.

 

[Gahars]

And again, the case merely was they smoked at home, not that they brought the cigarettes in.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about.

I have to ask - Are you just not reading, or are you reading and just not comprehending?

 

[smile72]

Paparazzi infringe upon your personal space and should be persecuted more often - it's one of the most disgusting professions in the world. It's no longer freedom of press when it's factually breaking the law.

These cases especially Minami's was not breaking the law. They know, that they need to represent AKB48, when they leave the studio. So, as I have said, there are rules that they must follow because they agreed to follow them.

 

[smile72]

It was just an example. Your personal life should not affect your professional performance, your professional life should not affect the quality of your personal life. Two separate spheres.

But like I said, I've already stated my case here.

EDIT: This is completely unlike you - where did the fondness for stupid rules come from all of a sudden? What about homosexual marriges? They're not allowed in many states - that's a rule. It's a stupid rule. Are you going to follow it now, or will you question it?

Is it just me or is the fact that something's "weeboo" automatically mean that common sense no longer applies?

Wrong, with this case, those rules are different as I believe same sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and if you are wondering tons of laws were made that violated the 14th Amendment as well, we just have to wait for those to be struck down.

 

[Foxi4]

These cases especially Minami's was not breaking the law. They know, that they need to represent AKB48, when they leave the studio. So, as I have said, there are rules that they must follow because they agreed to follow them.

There are rules that shouldn't exist in the first place which is what I'm saying here.

Also, photographing a person without their consent is breaking the law. Fact. This is why "Reality TV footage" often censors the eye area of accidentally-recorded people - they have no consent for the recording.

Wrong, with this case, those rules are different as I believe same sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and if you are wondering tons of laws were made that violated the 14th Amendment as well, we just have to wait for those to be struck down.

In that case, they're violating various Human Rights agreements signed by Japan - how is that different?

Hint: It's not - having a life partner is a right protected by law.

 

[Veho]

Endorsement deals, even in the West, usually have a clause saying, "as the public face of the company/product, your public image reflects on the image on the company/product, and any behaviour deemed unbefitting of / contradicting the image the company is trying to build for itself or its products will get you fired." And anything the media get their hands on is the "public image." It's like Jared eating at McDonald's.

 

[smile72]

There are rules that shouldn't exist in the first place which is what I'm saying here.

Also, photographing a person without their consent is breaking the law. Fact. This is why "Reality TV footage" often censors the eye area of accidentally-recorded people - they have no consent for the recording.

It doesn't matter these girls still have to follow their contracts, having their read what Veho just wrote about endorsement deals.
P.S. Not trying to sound like an asshole, these are merely what the girls agreed to

 

[Foxi4]

Endorsement deals, even in the West, usually have a clause saying, "as the public face of the company/product, your public image reflects on the image on the company/product, and any behaviour deemed unbefitting of / contradicting the image the company is trying to build for itself or its products will get you fired." And anything the media get their hands on is the "public image." It's like Jared eating at McDonald's.

Well I guess that makes it alright then! </sarcastic Arin Hanson voice>

 

[smile72]

Well I guess that makes it alright then! </sarcastic Arin Hanson voice>

No, it makes it contract law.

 

[Veho]

Well I guess that makes it alright then!

Anything else would be false advertizing.

 

[Foxi4]

No, it makes it contract law.

A contract that is breaking the law of a given country is null and void. Fact. I can sign a contract that I will assist in someone's suicide and I'm still going to jail for it if I do it because it's illegal.

Just gonna drop this here: CLICK!

Article 17 mandates the right of privacy. This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity (...) ~Signed by Japan back in 1978

I'm off, this is pretty hopeless. I made my case pretty clear, unfair treatment is unfair regardless of circumstances.

 

[smile72]

A contract that is breaking the law of a given country is null and void. Fact.

I'm off, this is pretty helpless. I made my case pretty clear, unfair treatment is unfair regardless of circumstances.

No, you are making no sense, these contracts do not violate Japan's laws thus making them perfectly legal.

 

[Veho]

A contract that is breaking the law of a given country is null and void. Fact.

Are paparazzi officially breaking any law? Is their activity illegal? It should be, but it isn't. Anything unearthed by the paparazzi is your public image, and your public image is owned by the company. As long as paparazzi are legal, there's nothing illegal about this type of contract. Ugly? Yes. Illegal? No.[/i]

 

[Foxi4]

Are paparazzi officially breaking any law? Is their activity illegal? It should be, but it isn't. Anything unearthed by the paparazzi is your public image, and your public image is owned by the company. As long as paparazzi are legal, there's nothing illegal about this type of contract. Ugly? Yes. Illegal? No.[/i]

Where I live (and in most civilized countries, actually) it is factually illegal and actions may be taken againts a paparazzi if he/she factually infringes upon your personal space, problem being that rarely anyone does take action - there are successful instances though.

There's just no one law concerning paparazzi's specifically, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any crimes that fit the pattern - from harrasment to stalking.

I really don't want to continue this here - I said I'm going to leave. We have the Golden Threads for that if you must, Veho - I think I made my case clear enough.