Roy moore accusations

Discussion in 'Politics' started by birch, Nov 17, 2017.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,193
    You are the one arguing that a sexual assaulter should not be lumped in with others.

    Not me.

    It would help if you applied my responses to you in context.. In other words, what, exactly, was I responding to?

    If you think groping a woman as her people took her photo, knowing she is not going to make a scene, is not about power and control, then perhaps you truly do not understand what sexual harassment is. And if you think holding a woman like that, groping her while smiling at her friend or spouse taking the picture, knowing that she will not make a scene is not distressful, then again, you don't know what sexual harassment is.

    But it is sexual harassment.

    I don't get it. What's the deal with you throwing down for a man who groped women?

    Uh huh..

    I mean, what could I possibly know or understand about it...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    Well, let's cut to the chase.

    Can the men posting identify, or try too, it may be a natural introspection, with a man sexually harassing a women, but not pedophilia as that would totally be blocked out of the mind?

    :EDIT:

    Hell, I'll post this video anyway:
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    And you are the one misrepresenting my posts, dealing in slanders and troll questions, begging questions, and generally failing even minimal standards of credibility.
    And if I don't, then not.
    And if I don't, then not.
    I'm not. And I am evaluating your claims about what I don't know, based on these posts of yours about what I do know.
    Another example - wait: what are you talking about?
    All I have to go by are your responses and postings here. Your "understanding" here, of my posts, is a litany of incomprehensions, slanders, projections, misleading vocabulary, begged questions, unwarranted presumptions, and general bs. So - - -

    Since it is no longer possible to talk about Moore, Trump, etc, without talking about Franken:
    Here's an illustrative paragraph from a commissioned opinion page essay in my local newspaper, by two people whom I think - in my assessment - align in their views with you (judge for yourself: http://www.startribune.com/the-franken-case-is-our-moment-of-truth-as-progressives/460871983/ note their rhetorical approach - it should be familiar):
    Does that bring a pause for reflection, raise a warning flag?

    Context: Minnesota has two Senators. The "senior", Amy Klobucher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar, is up for election in 2018, as a classic establishment Minnesota Democrat with Clinton-type credentials and associations (better than Clinton's, imho). She has not weighed in strongly on Franken in public (or anything else of controversial substance - confrontation is not her mode). She is widely assumed to be secure in office, with good polling numbers and no visible challenger, to the degree that some speculate the Republican Party will run a sacrifice candidate only. She is widely regarded as less "progressive" than Franken (including in issues bearing directly on women in particular), and has proven to be less of an obstacle to the Republican legislative and policy agenda than either Franken or her predecessor in the Senate (Mark Dayton). She has been much praised for "working across the aisle".

    The voting in the special election, to fill Franken's seat if he resigns, would be the same day. Franken won his seat by a much narrower margin than Klobuchar's.
    So would the vote for Governor, in which the first Democratic Party governor of the State in a long time (Dayton) - also among the most "progressive" upper echelon politicians in the State, and also elected in the first place on a very narrow margin - will be replaced. (Dayton's appointment for interim Senator would be a lame duck appointment.).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,193
    So he should remain in place for political expediency?
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    And I don't care about Bells' posts, I care about my posts and I feel you have deliberately ignored me.

    If you have put me on ignore at least give me the courtesy to say so.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  9. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,431
    So now we have two women with items signed by Moore, with identical looking handwriting... I know Evangelical White Christians will do some terrific mental and moral gymnastics to support their ridiculous single - issue mindset but damn... How sad that he isn't simply legally disqualified at this point.
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    you know why you keep shrugging? because these points you are dreaming up are silly and you don't understand the points you are making. it's points like this that is coming off suspect pretending there is a middle ground but providing not even a single real-life example of one. do you know why? because sexual harassment already covers those through certain criteria but you ignore that, just like sexual harassers do.

    for instance, if the other person stops after it is made known, then what sexual harassment has occurred? mind you, don't be ridiculous as it's not something as blatant as sexual groping which is sexual harassment/assault from the getgo. so answer this specific and open question.

    if for instance, someone has let you know they do not want to talk to you (personal context) or do not want to engage with you (personal context) or do not want to go out with you, then how is sexual harassment going to occur unless you keep pushing the issue?

    no one said you don't engage with people or of the opposite sex. but if someone was harassing you or someone who is interested in you in a way that's not platonic and that creates an uncomfortable conflict of interest, one may have to not engage with them at all since they may take any interaction as a sign or just keep exploiting that opportunity. so how is that silly?

    for instance, would you personally like to keep interacting with someone who harassed you before? what makes you think it's 'silly' for someone to not want to interact with someone who has shown they don't respect another's boundaries, even when made clear? or when the other has different interests that are not platonic?

    why does your brain turn to jello all of a sudden when it comes to this issue and why the pretense that there is this non-understanding of very common sense boundaries? it seems more willful and a pretense of cognitive dissonance than actual ignorance. you do know that someone does not have to say literally 'no' don't you?

    if someone told you they are not interested in dating or a relationship to you directly, what does that tell you? and ask yourself this most important question, why would the other ignore what they say to them? i already know the answer why harassers ignore it, but do YOU know why? it's ego for one thing and they see the other as an object to 'break' down if they can. an individual's rejection to a harasser is no more than a barrier to be broken down, something in the way of what they want or their agenda.

    if you ask someone out on a date and they decline, but you keep pursuing the issue, why should the one who rejected you keep interacting with you? what possible reason should they even want to?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    Not according to me.
    ? Not sure how that came up. I tend to post on cruxes in quarrels, let stand otherwise - that explain anything?
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    I'm desperate for attention, that would describe me.
     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,431
    Looks like the RNC has made a decision... one I think we all knew was coming as the risk of losing the seat became a possibility...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...2589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.f185bea55f41


    And here we see the fundamental issue - in this particular sentence: “We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet!”
    They are more concerned with taking away a woman's right to choose and be autonomous over her own body, ensuring any old crackpot can get a gun, and building that damn useless boarder wall than they are about the fact that this guy has left irrevocable dark smudges on several women's lives.

    Looking at things, it seems Feinstein has reintroduced (and is pushing for) new rules regarding sexual harassment in Congress, including simplifying the process by which victims can file reports and have their complaints acted upon. Given the current turmoil in the GOP, I can only hope that enough of them have an ounce of moral fiber and are willing to help make such changes a reality.
     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    And how is a psychological mindset not a crux?
    :EDIT:
    And before you answer let me reiterate:
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    LOL, good one K.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    On the matter of misunderstandings, take a look at the closure of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-about-the-men.160315/

    For the prize: Reading the initial brief comment overhead of the OP, predict which way, or on which "side", or with what motive, or against whom, the moderator will explain the troll was likely to be posting. (Hint: there are at least four different ways to misread that OP as trolling - two stereotypical "sides", each with a pro and con).

    For context on the sides etc, read the thread. Or this one.

    The entire matter requires, fundamentally, good faith.
    I don't see the quarrel.
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    So, you fundamentally agree with what I said?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Members should take care not to post things that can be misread in four separate ways as trolling. If they can be read that way, lots of different ways, then they most likely will be.

    I don't think there is any misreading at work in my moderation decision in that thread. It is clearly fallout from this current thread, and the intent to create division among forum members is also clear there.

    This is not the appropriate place for further discussion of that particular decision. If you want to discuss it further, PM me, or else take it up in the Site Feedback forum if you have a more general issue.
     
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,746
    Ah shucks... thanks... i thout it was ingenious myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    It's not being discussed here, and never was - it was referenced and introduced as an example, an illustration, part of the ongoing thread discussion about (initially) the Roy Moore accusations. I took its reality for granted, and still do, as a providential illustration of an apparently controversial point here.
    And an even further extension of its worth as an example here forthcomes.
    To whit: Misreading, however blatant or willful, is officially declared the fault of the misread. It is a feature of the post itself, independent of the reader. The burden of preventing misreading falls on the poster. It must be anticipated, and forestalled or avoided, with care, by the poster. Failure to take that care incurs liability, and blame, for any content or consequences of the misreading. Failure to have taken that care is demonstrated - proven - by the misreading itself.

    That has a familiar and centrally thread-relevant ring to it, on this thread and in the larger social context of this thread's topic generally, no? The matter of who declares the reality, and why, and when - the framing - is a multifaceted central concern of this discussion of Roy Moore and his depredations.

    As of this writing, the media operations of the Republican Party seem to have re-established their (temporarily threatened) predominant role in the framing of Moore. One almost never sees him mentioned alone, or conjoined with a more serious Republican offender, or in any other context that fails to mitigate public perceptions of his behaviors by association, for example.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    As I stated, there was no misreading here, let alone blatant or wilful misreading. Nevertheless, we can run with your premise that the post was misread, if you like, for the sake of seeing where the discussion leads.

    The question is: what responsibility do writers have regarding their own writings? The purpose of writing something in a news article, or in a post on an internet forum, is to communicate something to other people. If what you write can be interpreted at least 5 different ways (4 of them as trolling, and 1 innocent in this case), then I'd say that there's a good chance you're not communicating very effectively. A writer's message should, ideally, be clear and unambiguous, when writing non-fiction.

    The other extreme end of the argument you are putting is that all of the burden is falls on the reader, and none on the poster. I think it's unreasonable to expect a reader to always correctly interpret the meaning of and intent behind a piece of writing that is imprecise, unclear, ambiguous, or otherwise wanting.

    Communication is a cooperative enterprise between writer and reader. Both have obligations, or else communication breaks down or fails.

    Indeed. This is half the story, but it's not inaccurate.

    I think you're conflating two different issues in this thread. Issue one is the political messages being put out by political parties and groups about this senate candidate. Issue two is what constitutes sexual harassment and whether and to what extent there are (and should be) degrees of culpability for said harassment.

    It is possible to discuss the particulars of the allegations against Moore while leaving out the political machinations concerning the presentation of the relevant issues by various parties and media outlets. The facts of what occurred or did not occur are, in principle, separable from whatever political "spin" different players want to put on them.

    Your complaint appears to be that Moore's behaviour is being presented as being on a level footing with less reprehensible behaviour of certain others, and that this is being done for political gain by the Republican party and its supporters. My impression is that you would prefer to concentrate on one case at a time - on Moore alone, or on Franken alone, for example - rather than having the cases compared and contrasted by political pundits on either side of the political divide. If that is your view, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Where I disagree with you is that I perceive an unwillingness on your part to separate the politics of all this from the perpetrator/victim facts of each case. I disagree with you that it is impossible to separate the two.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    It was quite obvious. No trolling was evident, for example.
    (As I pointed out, people reading the post in good faith with comprehension would have a hard time even identifying the direction or slant of trolling it would be accused of.)
    But nobody is making that one. Let's deal with what's here.
    I'm not the one conflating those two issues, on this thread or in the larger world. Those posters bringing in topics like which messages are being sent by the Democratic Party in its floundering assignations of degrees of culpability? They aren't me.
    Maybe someone will undertake that possible discussion. Meanwhile - - - -
    That's an observation, and that posters here further that deception is among my complaints.
    ? I would obviously welcome more, not less, comparison and contrast - I've been trying to insist on it, here, in an uphill battle featuring much repetition.
    Nothing posted by me suggests any such impossibility. Merely the absence of the separation, and the consequences of that absence - which favor power and money and Republican agenda, including Moore's quest for the Senate seat.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    I can't help but feel you responding to the adminastraitor is a scapegoat for ignoring me. As I already said, I'm desperate for attention.

    You propose no comment to my question?
     

Share This Page