What percentage of your tax dollars ended up in that Georgia county to fund a 300k settlement. Probably zero. Assuming it was 100% was funded with federal dollars, let's do the math: about 50% of the federal tax revenue (5 trillion) came from individual income taxes (2.4 trillion). The average us taxpayer pays 14k in taxes each year. Do the math on a 300k payout and that equals .000875 cents came from each taxpayer. With that said federal monies to school districts are typically earmarked.... So the most likely scenario is zero money came from the poster.
Do you live in the Georgia county where she was fired? I bet the answer is no. Then why do you think it is your tax money funding the payment? Do you even live in the US?
Not arguing with you, but you misunderstand the point of the post. A guy that would get so mad that he would refuse to use a ticket he already has purchased (which is almost certainly a fictional scenario) because he can't see the crotch of the protagonist is a creep... The reference to porn in the response hammers the point home because it is a movie that you can watch that will definitely contain visible crotches. It's not commentary on the presence of sex in movies or that it should be limited to pornography, but a specific comment about that one person who seems to be taking a moral stand over not being able to see more of the protagonist's crotch. You keep trying to say the post is a broader comment on sex in movies. That assumption is not supported by the post. I only responded because you seem well intentioned, but are maybe drawing upon a personal event that is not applicable to the post itself.
The point of the post and the reason for calling the guy a creep (I say guy because we're definitely dealing with a male here) is because he wants a movie that is not designed to be pornography to have elements that would be better placed in a pornographic movie. You are inserting a degree of kink shaming into the post that doesn't actually exist. Watching pornography and having a healthy attitude about sex is different from wanting to sexualize a story that is not trying to be sexual. That is creepy.
This is how your comment sounds: You see that picture of Hitler and the head of Mercedes? Forget about this Holocaust shit. Can you believe the head of Mercedes worked with the Nazis?! That's who we really need to be focusing on... Forget Hitler!
Moonraker is fine. I loved it when i watched it as a kid. However, it contains the culmination of a reoccurring character's storyline, which might diminish the payoff if you haven't seen at least one of the previous films with that character. Other than that, have fun.
Where i live, even if you get consent, the choker could still be prosecuted if something goes wrong and/or the chokee changes their mind.