Roy moore accusations

[iceaura]

My point, throughout this godforsaken thread is that sexual harassment is not partisan.

That would have been a two sentence point greeted with no argument whatsoever.

a) They had the ability to literally set a standard, to do the right thing in regards to victims around the US.
b) And I never said they did. What I am saying is that if they had acted accordingly, or to be precise, put their money where their mouths were, so to speak, they would be in a much better position in regards to female voters, than they are now.

And I'm saying you're wrong, in your political assessment of what a bunch of Republican men will arrange.
That in my opinion "they" (you haven't clarified that yet) had no such opportunity, and the political actions you recommend for these unspecified people to take are unlikely - in the extreme - to have the political effects you predict or the political consequences you appear to favor.

1) It's Alabama. I mean, really, it's Alabama.
2) Was just making the point.

1) It's the US and the Republican Party. Really, it's the US and the Republican Party.
2) There's no point visible. Your apparent contention was both absurd in its certainty and irrelevant - did you have another "point"?

Actually, they wouldn't have. Especially not when they would have had the GOP with Trump and a paedophile to point out too. The response would have correctly been that they would have the party that did not tolerate such treatment of women in any way, shape or form.

You are not American, so your amnesia with regard to Kennedys, Johnsons, Edwards, Clintons, and the Republican media operations of the past forty years, is not as weird, but still:

->No, your fantasy there is not likely or viable or in the least realistic.

And of course you are, as always throughout, begging several questions with the term "such treatment". The Republican media folks will not overlook that, either.

Basic principle of marketing: The name acquires the attributes of the thing - not the other way around. If you successfully attach the name to what Franken has been accused of so far, it will acquire the attributes of what Franken has been accused of so far. Likewise with what Garrison Keillor, Joe Barton (bipartisanship! hurray!), and a couple of others, have been accused of. Are you sure you want to do that, with all your names?

 

[iceaura]

Yeah, you are going to call anyone out—

Yep. And your response, in total, is this:

—when you're just randomly making shit up.

Seriously, try supporting your make-believe. Oh, right, you can't.

So that's clear enough.
Do I need more support for this: " a good cause justifies slanders, lies, lousy arguments, and blatant injustices, while the moral high ground is yours by presumption of the good cause.", or can we just acknowledge the point and move on?

 

[Kittamaru]

Tis a sad spectacle, isn't it Ice? I think I'm going to start a similar thread at a different board, and see how things play out (I doubt such behavior would be tolerated there); namely, to see what happens when people are held to account for claims.

 

[iceaura]

Overlooked:

He made a choice to commit those actions. Forcibly kissing and groping is not excusable. Sexual harassment and/or assault should not be used as political fodder. That credits or discredits either party in how they handle it and if even lesser offenses are still tolerated, that sends a worse message to the general public. Admitting or apologizing after the fact is not a real solution with issues this dangerous to the safety of people.

So you regard Franken's behavior - as described in the accounts actually available so far - as "forcibly kissing and groping" (you are not presuming other behaviors are indicated, and assessing them); you include that known behavior - as described by the victims, so far - in the category "sexual assault"; and you regard only the objections to whatever consequences you recommend as "using {this} as political fodder" - not the recommended consequences, or public classifications of Franken's behaviors, themselves.

You regard anything else - lesser or different consequences, say - as demonstrating the offenses were being accepted or tolerated as "excusable".

And if I read it correctly you regard Franken as dangerous to the safety of women around him, that what he has done is too threatening for mere apology to suffice. (That is one interpretation of what you posted, which is vague).

And (since you post in this thread), you regard these features of Franken's behavior as justifying the lumping of responses to Franken with the responses to Moore.

Fair enough?

 

[Bells]

You are taking her response out of context in regards to what she was responding to.

Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that groping a person without their consent, is legally classified as sexual assault. Do you expect the laws be changed or ignored for Franken?

Six women have now accused Al Franken of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. He has admitted to said behaviour for the first accusations. Yes, he is a danger to women, due to the pattern of behaviour, he was confident enough to do this out in the open to unsuspecting women, he is in a position of power in the US government, which has protected this in the past.. Damn straight he is a danger to women around him.

 

[iceaura]

You are taking her response out of context in regards to what she was responding to.

No, I'm not. Go back and look.

Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that groping a person without their consent, is legally classified as sexual assault.

No, I don't seem to be ignoring that.

Six women have now accused Al Franken of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault.

So your answer to the question is yes - Franken is a dangerous predator, more or less in the same category as Moore and Trump, based on the behavior described in those accounts.

 

[Tiassa]

Do I need more support for this: " a good cause justifies slanders, lies, lousy arguments, and blatant injustices, while the moral high ground is yours by presumption of the good cause.", or can we just acknowledge the point and move on?

Well, you could try supporting your statement.

Or is that just asking too much?

 

[birch]

including mentioning concerns about how to avoid making mistakes or inadvertently crossing boundaries, as well as folks calling in with advice and statements about it. I guess this isn't as "cut and dry" as some like to make it out to be after all.

you still don't comprehend what sexual harassment is. avoiding social faux paus are a part of life, not just for the hell of it but to be aware of others, right?

some actions or words are more than just 'faux paus', right? they have greater significance. as in you don't accidentally just sexually grope.

but inappropriate behavior, whether realized or unacknowledged, is still inappropriate behavior, right?

for instance, once i had to call a tow and the man who came out used that opportunity to ask me out just because for no other reason than i was interacting with him, when i declined, he took it further to try and hug and kiss me. okay, you could tell he was taking advantage of the situation of a person alone because people who harass are not considering you in the equation.

was that illegal? not really. was it harassment? pretty much. consider they did not care whether i would feel unsafe or uncomfortable considering the situation and even worse, on the side of the road at night.

i didn't call the company because he asked me out, which was irritating itself considering the situation but because he hugged me (touched me without consent) and then tried to kiss me. this was the what the guy on the other end said to me in an exasperated tone as if he's done this before but they don't care, 'well, did he at least fix the tire??' ignoring what he did as if it's not important. but that's north carolina and you would run into more unprofessional and lax people, so that was that.

 

[Bells]

No, I'm not. Go back and look.

I did. I also read her other responses in regards to sexual harassment. At the moment, you are simply trying to nitpick a definition that even you should know is downright silly.

No, I don't seem to be ignoring that.

Really:

So your answer to the question is yes - Franken is a dangerous predator, more or less in the same category as Moore and Trump, based on the behavior described in those accounts.

Yes.

Put simply, if I came face to face with him, I would be concerned about his behaviour in regards to me as a woman and the women around me, just as I would be equally concerned with Trump and Moore.

I think to suggest otherwise about a man who has now been reported to have done this to six women, would be silly.

If a guy goes out of his way to be a creep, then he is a creep. What part of that is so hard to understand that you require further clarification?

Ask yourself this.. If you know of a guy who sexually assaulted and sexually harassed six women, would you be arguing that he wasn't a sexual predator?

 

[Kittamaru]

you still don't comprehend what sexual harassment is. avoiding social faux paus are a part of life, not just for the hell of it but to be aware of others, right?

some actions or words are more than just 'faux paus', right? they have greater significance. as in you don't accidentally just sexually grope.

but inappropriate behavior, whether realized or unacknowledged, is still inappropriate behavior, right?

I don't think anyone is questioning if it is inappropriate or not...?

for instance, once i had to call a tow and the man who came out used that opportunity to ask me out just because for no other reason than i was interacting with him, when i declined, he took it further to try and hug and kiss me. okay, you could tell he was taking advantage of the situation of a person alone because people who harass are not considering you in the equation.

was that illegal? not really. was it harassment? pretty much. consider they did not care whether i would feel unsafe or uncomfortable considering the situation and even worse, on the side of the road at night.

If it made you that uncomfortable, to the point of feeling unsafe, then that would seem to fall in the realm of assault (fear of bodily harm coupled with a credible ability to carry out said harm), and sexual harassment as well. I would think it to be something that could be reported, and should be (if it isn't by strict definition) illegal. By my understanding of the law in NC, I would think what he did was illegal, based on what you have described.

i didn't call the company because he asked me out, which was irritating itself considering the situation but because he hugged me (touched me without consent) and then tried to kiss me. this was the what the guy on the other end said to me in an exasperated tone as if he's done this before but they don't care, 'well, did he at least fix the tire??' ignoring what he did as if it's not important. but that's north carolina and you would run into more unprofessional and lax people, so that was that.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the proper way to proceed with this would be; attempting to contact the company's higher-ups would probably prove just as fruitless, especially in the absence of substantial evidence (other witnesses, audio/video recording, etc), and without said evidence I don't know how likely it is an attorney would be able to get anywhere with this; it would come down to a "he said she said" situation. Now, if multiple people had incidents with the same driver, that would probably make for a compelling case and result in some sort of traction...

I don't know a good way to prevent situations like this short of everyone recording everything... which, honestly, just shouldn't even be necessary.

What a fucked up world we live in...

 

[iceaura]

I did. I also read her other responses in regards to sexual harassment. At the moment, you are simply trying to nitpick a definition that even you should know is downright silly.

I forgot - you reading stuff is not the same as you comprehending stuff.

Put simply, if I came face to face with him, I would be concerned about his behaviour in regards to me as a woman and the women around me, just as I would be equally concerned with Trump and Moore.

And so the political argument becomes clear: Moore and Franken and Trump are equivalent predation threats to the community, and must be treated the same by all except hypocrites.

Ask yourself this.. If you know of a guy who sexually assaulted and sexually harassed six women, would you be arguing that he wasn't a sexual predator?

Just nailing it down: Franken is to be treated as a sexual predator, and sexual assault - the entire category - is to acquire the attributes of Franken's behavior.

That is pretty much identical to a standard Republican media line, btw, including in defending Moore. Any idea why?
- - - - -

was that illegal? not really

Yes, it was - at least in my State.
Hard to prove, unfortunately, at least without a bunch of witnesses and your husband or somebody taking pictures like in Franken's assaults.

 

[birch]

 

[Bells]

And so the political argument becomes clear: Moore and Franken and Trump are equivalent predation threats to the community, and must be treated the same by all except hypocrites.

Yes Iceaura.

He is a serial groper of women. Why do you think he should get a pass?

I mean, I seriously do not understand why this is so difficult for you. He has done this to multiple women, one woman had to have a friend accompany her to the bathroom because she was concerned enough after he propositioned to join her in the bathroom, he sexually assaulted 6 women now, that we know of. I mean, you seem to demand that I treat this politically. I'm not. To me, as far as I am concerned, Franken is yet another man who cannot be trusted because he has sexually assaulted numerous women and on top of that, is getting away with it, just like Trump got away with it and Moore will get away with it..

Just nailing it down: Franken is to be treated as a sexual predator, and sexual assault - the entire category - is to acquire the attributes of Franken's behavior.

That is pretty much identical to a standard Republican media line, btw, including in defending Moore. Any idea why?

A man who sexually assaults 6 women is what, to you?

A good guy? A guy to be trusted?

You are essentially insinuating that we create a special category for Franken to protect your delicate political sensitivities.

And at no time have I defended Moore or Trump.

Asking me why Republicans who voted in Trump and are more than likely to vote in Moore make a distinction between those two serial offenders and Franken, really, look in the mirror as you are demanding we make a distinction between Moore and Trump and Franken based upon party lines. Which is frankly ridiculous. Sexual assault is sexual assault. I don't particularly give a crap as to what side of the political equation one belongs to.

If a random stranger had done this to 6 woman, you would not be making this distinction because no one in their right mind would make such a distinction.

 

[Bowser]

But... they'll vote for a pedo all in the name of keeping "muh party!" in power. It's fucking fantastic how utterly fucked we are as a nation.

My understanding is that the alternative would be someone who supports abortion.
Child Molester or Child Killer? It is a hard choice. I would probably opt out of voting altogether.

 

[birch]

My understanding is that the alternative would be someone who supports abortion.
Child Molester or Child Killer? It is a hard choice. I would probably opt out of voting altogether.

wow, that's a hard choice for you. how about a pro-lifer who is a child molestor? more children to molest in the world.

my stepfather was one and so was my mother pro-life and christian. wait for it: but the twist is they loved to feed on human suffering and oppression. they had no problem with evil or suffering or someone going hungry or being molested or raped or abused or neglected or enslaved. they had absolutely ZERO empathy or sympathy for quality of life at all. none..zilch..whatsoever.

so why would one even be pro-life? well, you can't have human slaves with abortion and you can't have human neglect with abortion and you can't have human suffering with abortion and you certainly can't have people to torture, use and abuse with abortion. in short, you can't have have more victims to violate or act out your sadism, if they are not here, can you?

secretly, conservatives are the most selfish of all. they want more people in this world to share in the misery. their pro-life stance isn't out of love, it's out of selfishness and irresponsibility. that irresponsibility is the fact there is no concern or consideration of the circumstances one is born into or the sustainability in the larger picture for a society or the planet. in other words, they don't care if they suffer after they are born.

conservatives kind of look at abortion similar to non-breeding cattle. they want victims plus misery loves company. they don't want to be oppressed, they need a group of people to oppress and do their dirty work.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

For some bizarre reason, Kitta has taken to trolling this thread with off topic posts on the tax bill. The off topic posts in question have been moved to a separate thread pertaining to the GOP tax bill.

 

[Kittamaru]

Hum, I see one of our neighbors was unable to fathom why the actions of the GOP during the tax bill debacle, and all that it encompasses, are important to this cause... a pity. Again, this kind of failure of logic is why nothing productive will be accomplished. I guess this makes her proud?

I guess we can see who it is that is truly "shutting people down"... cest la vie...

 

[Bowser]

conservatives kind of look at abortion similar to non-breeding cattle. they want victims plus misery loves company. they don't want to be oppressed, they need a group of people to oppress and do their dirty work.

I believe they think life has value. Possibly even in the worst of times.

 

[Kittamaru]

I believe they think life has value. Possibly even in the worst of times.

Their actions indicate otherwise - life has value, and must be protected at all costs, up to the point of birth... After that, you are on your own (and so is the mother). The fact that they've allowed programs such as CHIP to lapse, whilst demanding further abortion restrictions as part of a damn TAX bill, supports that.

 

[Bowser]

Their actions indicate otherwise - life has value, and must be protected at all costs, up to the point of birth... After that, you are on your own (and so is the mother). The fact that they've allowed programs such as CHIP to lapse, whilst demanding further abortion restrictions as part of a damn TAX bill, supports that.

"Their actions" seems to indicate that everyone is in agreement.