International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And Thereís Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

Dr. Keith 17th November 2017 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080971)
I did not make the assumption that she was thirsty. You just did.

Are you walking back that assumption? That is fine.

No, you made another assumption. I saw that and thought "I wonder how many assumptions we could make" and then I remembered your lesson in how the word "thirsty" can be applied to women who come forward with news stories.

I thought you would appreciate the reminder of other assumptions you could make. Like I said, I was just adding to your little pile of assumption.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12080949)
Thatís irrelevant to my point, which had to do with your contention:
Hiliting mine.

You seem to be eliding over the unwilling bit.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12080981)
No, you made another assumption. I saw that and thought "I wonder how many assumptions we could make" and then I remembered your lesson in how the word "thirsty" can be applied to women who come forward with news stories.

I thought you would appreciate the reminder of other assumptions you could make. Like I said, I was just adding to your little pile of assumption.

Oh dear, i didn't make those assumptions either.

It would appear that you are having difficulty distinguishing between the people making the assumption (ie, that the accuser is thirsty = your assumption) with the person noting those assumptions (ie me)

If you are assuming she is thirsty, by golly that is your right.

It does not mean that her allegations against franken are not true.

See how that works??

Brainster 17th November 2017 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casebro (Post 12080779)
And is the history of the pic that she had the only copy? Sounds like self-humiliation for her to release it.

No, apparently the photographer sent everybody on the tour CDs with all the photographs taken. So no, the humiliation was not self-inflicted.

Dr. Keith 17th November 2017 12:51 PM

Here is the post wherein you made your assumption:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080836)
I "assume" she didn't do it before because before #metoo she was quite rightfully concerned that she would be slut shamed like she was in this thread.


Does that clear up your confusion?

fuelair 17th November 2017 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079842)
Umm, that is not slut shaming. Posting pictures of her in a bikini in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her in her bikini for the sole purpose of discrediting her is slut shaming.

This is so obvious that I am stunned that people are defending this argument.

No offence, but I do not track slut shaming with pictures of women nude or in bikinis (etc.) as slut shaming. Possibly as I do not regard women who choose to pose for such or be in public in/out of such clothing (or not-clothing) as sluts - never have and I am pretty sure never will. Unless there is commentary that makes it such - in which case I regard the commentary as that of a raving *******.

xjx388 17th November 2017 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12080703)
There is video of the president talking about how he sexually harasses and assaults women then doing it after he gets off the bus.

A video of him talking about women letting him touch them because he is a star is not a video of him committing sexual assault or harassment. He did not then, grab the actress by the pussy after he got off the bus. Mind you, I think what he said and how he treats women is pretty disgusting, but it isn't a description of sexual harassment or assault. What he said to Brande Roderick ("Must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees."), while technically true :p, is a pretty blatant display of sexual harassment.

Similarly, what Franken did is not sexual assault but it most certainly is harassment in the same vein as Trump's "knees" comment.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12081002)
Here is the post wherein you made your assumption:

Did you notice the quotation marks around the word "assume" in that sentence?

Travis 17th November 2017 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12080878)
I am getting out of here; the Partisan Blinders people are wearing is too much to take.

Quick! To the castle! Up the drawbridge.

Care to ever actually elaborate?

xjx388 17th November 2017 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12080845)
WTF ?

I still don't understand why she is ashamed ?

WTF did she do to be ashamed about ?

It was probably humiliating to her at the time it was being passed around and giggled about. At this point, releasing it corroborates her story so she likely feels like it's worth it to release it despite whatever embarrassment it might cause her.

It's not that SHE did anything to be ashamed about but that there's a picture of her in such a compromising position. If you can't see why a woman might be embarrassed about that then that's probably part of the problem.

Belz... 17th November 2017 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12081015)
Did you notice the quotation marks around the word "assume" in that sentence?

What did you mean if not assume, then? What does the word in scare quotes stand in for?

TheL8Elvis 17th November 2017 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12081020)
It was probably humiliating to her at the time it was being passed around and giggled about. At this point, releasing it corroborates her story so she likely feels like it's worth it to release it despite whatever embarrassment it might cause her.

It's not that SHE did anything to be ashamed about but that there's a picture of her in such a compromising position. If you can't see why a woman might be embarrassed about that then that's probably part of the problem.

Thanks for trying, but you don't get to just say "you don't understand so that's the problem."

So now she's not ashamed and humiliated , but she's embarrassed, because Al franken acted like a jackass ?

As for the hilighted, well, again, we've already covered the topic of pictures of her in compromising positions, yes ?

KatieG 17th November 2017 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12080302)
+1.

Depending on how he used the picture, it could be harassment, but judging by just the picture it's not assault.

However, it's pretty stupid for a senator to engage in something like this, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged.

He was not a senator at the time this picture was allegedly taken. While in poor taste and tactless, he is not actually touching her breasts. Franken's call for an ethics investigation into his actions speaks better for him than others that have been accused. Let the actual truth be told.

Minoosh 17th November 2017 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12080387)
Not all sexual assault is a crime.

What would you count as noncriminal sexual assault?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12080387)
It isn't the pressure that is the issue. It is the forcing the tongue into her mouth that is the problem. If that happened to my kid in a drama class or a coworker in a winter party play rehearsal, I would be livid.

The picture is being discussed at such great lengths because it's the evidence presented, along with the unproved assertion of unwelcome tongue insertion, of so-called sexual assault.

In my state, the way the laws are written, sexual assault is a synonym for rape. For the most part that means penetration, but tongue in mouth isn't included. "Groping" would fall under sexual abuse. But apparently most states don't have that distinction. I think it's useful. Lumping the whole spectrum in together is problematic, IMO. There's just too great a variety of behaviors to be covered under the same law. I can understand being revolted when you're not expecting someone to slip you some tongue, but it is just not the same as being violently raped at gunpoint. There are quite a lot of people in the latter category and I'd just as soon see enforcement centered on them.

quadraginta 17th November 2017 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12080956)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ore-publishing

In a statement Friday, KABC said a “very small group” of employees discussed the best day for host Leeann Tweeden to come forward with her account of being forcibly kissed and groped by Franken in 2006.

The station says it informed “some of our news partners so they could prepare to cover what we knew was a very significant story."


First paragraph of that article;

A Los Angeles radio station is pushing back on reports that former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone appeared to know sexual misconduct allegations involving Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) were coming hours before they were made public.


Interesting. They aren't doing a very good job of "pushing back".

They admit that a group at the station discussed it and then informed "some of our news partners".

"How many people does it take to keep a secret?" Any qualified news professional knows the answer to that old saw, and it isn't "some of our news partners". Or "a group", even.

Once they informed "some of" their news partners, that horse was well out of the barn even if one of the "group" didn't spill the beans. They might just as well have posted it on Facebook.

In fact, doing it their way was probably more efficient. It ensured that word would get straight to the people who would make the most hay out of it.

Minoosh 17th November 2017 02:19 PM

Here's a question just out of interest: How many apologies in any of these cases include the simple phrase "I'm sorry," as in "I'm sorry I acted this way," not, "I'm sorry if you interpreted my actions this way"?

d4m10n 17th November 2017 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phunk (Post 12080892)
What about if a picture like that surfaced, of you and an unwilling coworker at a different job a couple decades ago? Should your current employer fire you?

I know 2017 has felt like ten years, but...

ETA: He already knew he was running for Senate, according to the NYT.

Dr. Keith 17th November 2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12081022)
What did you mean if not assume, then? What does the word in scare quotes stand in for?

Man, I've been down this road. It took over fifteen posts to figure out a single word included three unstated assumptions the last time. Have fun.

Dr. Keith 17th November 2017 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KatieG (Post 12081110)
He was not a senator at the time this picture was allegedly taken. While in poor taste and tactless, he is not actually touching her breasts. Franken's call for an ethics investigation into his actions speaks better for him than others that have been accused. Let the actual truth be told.

I have two takes on these issues, only the second is related to your good post.

The first is that it is up to the the voters. Yep, even Alabama deserves to be able to put a kiddie diddler in the senate if that is the man that best represents their state.

The second is that their conduct as a senator speaks more loudly than their conduct prior to becoming a senator. As such, Franken has acting like a senator once the issue was raised by apologizing and asking to be investigated. We will see what Moore does once he is elected. But, if he continues to act as an embarrassing man-child, then he should be treated as one.*

*I'm not sure what that would entail. Maybe a cabinet position or something.

beren 17th November 2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12080845)
WTF ?

I still don't understand why she is ashamed ?

WTF did she do to be ashamed about ?

How is this hard?


Shame is rarely logical. As an example, rape victims often feel shame even though they are the victim. It may not make sense to you personally, but it is a documented and frequent occurrence.

This appears to arise (although I am not an expert here) from the tendency humans have to blame themselves for things outside of their control. Children often feel a parent's divorce is their fault, for example. There are many examples of people blaming themselves for not being able to stop a horrible event even though they could not realistically have done so.

If one blames themselves for something irrationally, this can easily lead to shame.

Logical? no.
Real? Yes.
Common? Yes.
Predictable? Verymuch so.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079915)
You need to drop this because it's going nowhere. It's very obvious that Ginger's meaning was that since she had worked in industries where women are often seen as objects that the likelihood is that others had done similar things to her, that is was highly unlikely that Franken is the only man that she has encountered that did this sort of thing, and likely others did worse, so it was unusual that she would single him out of all the other probable times.

If you what to attack that argument attack that argument, it has flaws in it that are very attackable, and I don't personally agree with Ginger's point at all, but at least attack the right argument instead your continual attacking of strawmen. All that does is make you look like you are trolling.

Thank you. This is an example of how to move a discussion forward despite not being in agreement.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
... That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying?

:rolleyes:

So people distort what I posted despite multiple clarifications why you and others have my POV wrong but I'm lying? Do you know how ignorant it sounds to call someone a liar because you don't understand their post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
... Are you (through defending SG's argument) saying that because she is a pretty woman who poses semi-nude in magazines and has worked at Hooters that she MUST have been a victim in the past?

That's a pretty certain given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
...And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument?

In this case, yes. It goes to the point she is very much likely to be objectified by men all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
...I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious.

Oh puhleese. :rolleyes: What fantasy world do you live in?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
...Whether or not she has been victimized in the past and whether or not she is complaining about such victimization is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand: Franken's conduct which he has admitted to.

He said he remembers it differently yet he's willing to apologize and take responsibility for her perception of the events in the skit and he apologizes for the groping joke.


Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
...I think the "past victimization" argument was a thinly veiled, "Well look at her and her history," argument which goes by the colloquial name, "slut-shaming." What makes it so is the fact that NSFW pictures were linked, which was completely unnecessary unless the goal was to show her scantily clad in order to put the image in our minds of a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead.

Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 12079954)
People just won't do nuance.

Franken at this point may as well have pulled a Bill Cosby.

That's the problem with promoting population-scale victimhood as a political strategy. Eventually if everyone's going to get their turn as a victim, you have to pretty much start inventing bad guys.

The media likes equivalency, false or not. It's their defense against accusations of being partisan.

theprestige 17th November 2017 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KatieG (Post 12081110)
He was not a senator at the time this picture was allegedly taken. While in poor taste and tactless, he is not actually touching her breasts. Franken's call for an ethics investigation into his actions speaks better for him than others that have been accused. Let the actual truth be told.

Why is "actually touching her breasts" the cutoff?

Why not "making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent"?

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis (Post 12079959)
It's like there is a race to try and catch people being hypocritical that has seemingly turned off critical thinking.

I think it's a version of, "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

I see two issues here. One is the false equivalence, between Moore and Trump, Franken makes a great target to neutralize their behavior. There are also a lot of conservatives dragging Bill Clinton's skeleton out of the closet, again to neutralize Trump's and Moore's behavior. Clinton, sure but Franken, we still don't see a pattern of anything other than a history of sexual joking.

And that brings up the second issue, are we not allowed any sexual behavior at all? Can people not see the difference between a joke grope in a photo and actual groping & exposing one's junk to women who aren't interested?

Can we not keep an open mind at this point (barring corroborating accusations that Franken sneaks a feel and a kiss pretending it's part of a skit) that Ms Tweeden's dislike of Franken on that whole USO tour, her resentment of the grope joke influenced her perception of the skit and the need to practice it?

She assumed Franken wrote the scene and asked to practice it because he was lusting after her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. There are plenty of kissing skits on SNL and they usually exaggerate the making out part.

At this point, it's obvious Tweeden dislikes Franken and almost certainly was unhappy on the whole USO tour with him. Was it because he actually did jam his tongue in her mouth? If he did that is disgusting and I'm pretty sure the standard in acting is no tongue. That's the one part in this described incident that gives me concern.

Or was that her misinterpretation of Franken's intent? Which is why I await corroborating complaints of similar behavior.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llwyd (Post 12079973)
I find the comment below a rather balanced way to deal with this. As of this moment I still think it is Stonean rat****ing and merely an error of judgment by Franken's part but we'll see if a pattern of behaviour will be established in which case he should resign, but absolutely not based on information so far:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ic-possibility

That's an interesting article.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12079287)
Relevant, I hate to go for the history thing, it's not always fair. But this does seem at least a little relevant.

CNN is sucking it up.

If it wasn't political (which it might not be) I have to wonder if she wasn't sexually harassed way worse than this in her career. And is this a 15 minutes of fame or not?

Show me Franken has a pattern. Or this really is a nothingburger.


This is interesting:

So is the Greg Gutfeld interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBpS_Nhr8E
Pro-gun and a lot of sexual innuendo jokes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081203)
Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.

Nope he just read your post where you said her history was relevant, speculated it was political, she was probably harassed before, and was looking for 15 minutes of fame.

And that was before you gratuitously posted her "NSFW" pictures.

Absolutely the most over the top example of slut shaming one is likely to see.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12081132)
First paragraph of that article;

A Los Angeles radio station is pushing back on reports that former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone appeared to know sexual misconduct allegations involving Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) were coming hours before they were made public.


Interesting. They aren't doing a very good job of "pushing back".

They admit that a group at the station discussed it and then informed "some of our news partners".

"How many people does it take to keep a secret?" Any qualified news professional knows the answer to that old saw, and it isn't "some of our news partners". Or "a group", even.

Once they informed "some of" their news partners, that horse was well out of the barn even if one of the "group" didn't spill the beans. They might just as well have posted it on Facebook.

In fact, doing it their way was probably more efficient. It ensured that word would get straight to the people who would make the most hay out of it.

Well that makes sense.

I sense Tweeden seriously dislikes Franken. I didn't sense this was any kind of Fox News or alt-right manufactured stunt.

Oystein 17th November 2017 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive (Post 12080522)
That is certainly a factor.




I absolutely think that victims should come forward (if they chose to do so). But you have to admit we've had at least, what, seven or eight (or more) in a matter of weeks? After having a couple a year at most? It looks odd.

It could also be as PhantomWolf suggests, that the dam just broke. I think a lot of dams are either breaking or close to it.

Ok. You sounded earlier as if certain periods on the political calender ought to be no-no for past victims to come forward. I do notice a higher number of cases has come under the focus of intense media attention lately. This can have several reasons, but I see little need in scrutinizing individual victims why they pick this time to break silence rather than any other.

Oystein 17th November 2017 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080545)
Just "context" for the "slut shaming" I guess.

She worked at Hooters, open season on Hooters girls.

Reelect Al Franken

You gleefully dance with your strawmen.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12081140)
Here's a question just out of interest: How many apologies in any of these cases include the simple phrase "I'm sorry," as in "I'm sorry I acted this way," not, "I'm sorry if you interpreted my actions this way"?

Well are we sure the latter isn't valid? I took Franken at his word, being sorry if he was misinterpreted or not, he took responsibility for causing the misinterpretation.

That's a tad different from some of the apologies as of late like Trump's non-apology apologies, "I'm sorry you are sorry."

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12081249)
You gleefully dance with your strawmen.

Describing the effect of posting the accuser's history and posting her "NSFW" pictures is not in any way shape or form strawman.

If someone writes something that is "racist" or "sexist" do you think that is a strawman? protip: it is not, and calling her posts "slut shaming" is likewise not.

This is unbelievably basic.

Say, at least we have moved beyond you calling my posts lies, so that is progress.

crescent 17th November 2017 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12080739)
I would add that in two decades of being on the set of Saturday Night Live, Franken had ample opportunity to behave badly. If he did, we are likely to hear of it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12080775)
I don't buy the argument that because we haven't heard about it, probably nothing happened.

Where did I say we would have heard of it already?

Present tense and past tense are different things.

What typically happens is that once one person comes forward publicly, others follow (if there are any). We've had one come forward for Franken - will any others?

If no more women come forward to accuse Franken, does it matter?

Oystein 17th November 2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12080878)
I am getting out of here; the Partisan Blinders people are wearing is too much to take.

You never made out the claim that anyonr here has partisan blinders on. That's bloviation.

Oystein 17th November 2017 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuelair (Post 12081004)
No offence, but I do not track slut shaming with pictures of women nude or in bikinis (etc.) as slut shaming. Possibly as I do not regard women who choose to pose for such or be in public in/out of such clothing (or not-clothing) as sluts - never have and I am pretty sure never will. Unless there is commentary that makes it such - in which case I regard the commentary as that of a raving *******.

TBD is mighty proud if himself that he has amassed dozens of posts now with the word "slut" referring to Mrs. Tweeden, as if he wished to ensure everybody thinks of her as a slut.

Dr. Keith 17th November 2017 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12081221)
Why is "actually touching her breasts" the cutoff?

Why not "making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent"?

I'm not sure where the cutoff is, but I think we can agree that one is assault and the other is not.

Some will forgive neither. Others may forgive making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent more easily than actual assault. And still others are willing to forgive even assault.

That's why we have elections.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12081283)
TBD is mighty proud if himself that he has amassed dozens of posts now with the word "slut" referring to Mrs. Tweeden, as if he wished to ensure everybody thinks of her as a slut.

Most people have not cut the second word off like you have done.

Shaming.

Do not be afraid to say shaming.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12081284)
I'm not sure where the cutoff is, but I think we can agree that one is assault and the other is not.

Some will forgive neither. Others may forgive making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent more easily than actual assault. And still others are willing to forgive even assault.

That's why we have elections.

I don't disagree, but isn't there a good case to be made that Franken should step aside and give someone else a shot in 2020, for the sake of his own party and values?

xjx388 17th November 2017 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081203)
:rolleyes:

So people distort what I posted despite multiple clarifications why you and others have my POV wrong but I'm lying? Do you know how ignorant it sounds to call someone a liar because you don't understand their post?

I'm questioning why Oystein calls TBD "Vile" and "liar" simply because he disagrees with TBD's posts, yet, Oystein also disagrees with you but does not call you names. Just pointing out the inconsistency.

I don't misunderstand your post. You are making an argument that she is very likely to have been groped and harassed many times in her career so why single out Franken. That argument is speculative and irrelevant. If you aren't bringing it up to throw shade on Tweeden, then why bring it up? It doesn't excuse Franken.

Quote:

That's a pretty certain given.
1)Why is it a given and 2)Of what relevance is it to Franken's behavior?

Quote:

In this case, yes. It goes to the point she is very much likely to be objectified by men all the time.
How is your speculation regarding her being objectified by men relevant to evaluating Franken's behavior? How is that significantly different from observing a Hooter's waitress who complains about being sexually harassed by a customer and saying, "well, a Hooter's Girl should be used to it so why is she complaining about this guy?" Is that how you think we should react to women being sexually harassed? Is there no room in your worldview for the idea that maybe Tweeden had NOT experienced any harassment to this level before? My view is that speculation about her choice of job, how she chooses to present herself to the world and whether or not she has been previously harassed is completely irrelevant. Bringing it up only serves to cast some shade on the victim.

I will offer one clarification: "slut-shaming" may not be a completely accurate way to characterize your argument. However, it is certainly closely related to what you are doing here -throwing shade on the victim in order to sow doubt about her motivations for coming forward in Franken's case.

Quote:

Oh puhleese. :rolleyes: What fantasy world do you live in?

He said he remembers it differently yet he's willing to apologize and take responsibility for her perception of the events in the skit and he apologizes for the groping joke.
Yup. That's what all harassers who have been outed do. It's not him; it's her perception of the event. And to be clear, it wasn't the "events in the skit," she objected to it was the unwanted kiss during a practice run that she felt pressured into doing.
Quote:

Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.
I don't think it's off base. Whether you intended to throw shade on Tweeden or not, it certainly appeared that way to me. In any case, your clarified argument is a case of begging the question and irrelevant.

casebro 17th November 2017 04:41 PM

[quote=Skeptic Ginger;12081231..... one's junk.......[/QUOTE]

That is about as sexist as the word that starts with a C and rhymes with hunt.

Put that hypocrisy in your vagina hat.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.