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 There’s Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105583)
Again, that's for the courtroom. So if multiple people told you that someone abused them and their stories were consistent, you would be perfectly okay with that person being around your kids?

We are talking about removing people from their jobs, severely disciplining them, or removing elected officials from office. We are talking about paying out lots of taxpayer or company money to shut people up.

Keeping a particular "pervert" away from my kids because I am uneasy about him is not the same thing.

Do you want to remove/dismiss/discipline people without any due process?

Just because of some claims?

For Moore, the voters have certainly heard all about the claims, as with Trump.

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105671)

Do you want to remove/dismiss/discipline people without any due process?
.

Is it my house? Is it my business? There are at least two cases the answer is yes.

Also, none of those three applied to franken.

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12105673)
Is it my house? Is it my business? There are at least two cases the answer is yes.

Also, none of those three applied to franken.

I still think it's a terrible precedent to believe accusations alone and act on them.

If it's your personal life, fine. I'm not arguing about that.

If you want to boycott a business because your friend told you the owner hates blacks, fine.

If you want to have the business shut down because people think and say that the owner hates blacks, that's different.

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 11:48 AM

We are talking about someone not getting the backing of his party. That's hardly a horrible thing.

Regnad Kcin 7th December 2017 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12105589)
Or it was the right thing to do, consistent with the Democrats and progressives having real convictions beyond just gaining political power and the courage to stick with them.

This is part of the reason I said that there isn't any reason to discuss this with most conservatives or Republicans. They largely (as a group) don't actually care about women being harassed beyond using it as political bludgeon and can't conceive of it being anything but for the Dems either. But it isn't. The progressives have progressed and the input of those who have refused the existence or scope of the problem and/or tried to regress (like supporting someone who openly opposes women's suffrage) shouldn't be a major consideration when making choices like the Dems made here. It isn't for them, because at no point will it change what they say or do. They'll still hold a double-standard. They'll still refuse that the Dems have the morally higher ground on this issue. They're not going to even attempt to find common ground, only frame attacking Dems and progressives as that. Once they're no longer such tribal authoritarians it might become useful again, and there is a sizeable minority of conservatives and Republicans who have worthwhile opinions, but that hasn't happened yet.

This should be focused on internal choices and convictions. Thankfully it looks like it was. It wasn't like they were going to gain politically with outsiders comparatively when the Republicans are backing Moore again.

Without offering commentary, it has appeared to me for quite some time, Democrats concern themselves with the plays while Republicans focus on nothing but the end zone.

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105683)
We are talking about someone not getting the backing of his party. That's hardly a horrible thing.

Repubs said that he would be expelled if elected...he would immediately be in an ethics proceeding when sworn in.

For allegations from decades ago.

An expulsion has not happened since 1862, related to the civil war.

mgidm86 7th December 2017 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105400)
Am I the only person around who has never encountered a non-sexual butt grab?

My Mom's friend likes to grab-ass. She's in her 70s now. She's been sneaking grabs since I was in high school, and it's just her thing. You should have seen my sisters boyfriends face when she gave him a squeeze. He had no idea she did that. She does it to everyone and it's hilarious.

That probably doesn't really count, but ya it can happen.

Franken didn't admit to anything until the photo came out, and even then what has he admitted? He gets no points for honesty, and reading part of his speech - mentioning Trump tainted the whole thing. Pathetic.

I have no animosity toward Franken other than the fact that I hated him on SNL.

luchog 7th December 2017 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12105539)
The Dems did not do as well with women in the last presidential election as they would like. Franken's actions were not consistent with the image they want to have as a party. It is a long play and I am not sure it will work. But really, what do they lose by trying?


Well, for starters, they lose the propaganda battle. The GOP can now point to Conyers and Franken and say "Look at how immoral our opponents are", while at the same time denying their own accusers, asserting that the accusations are false and the result of leftist "fake news" political attacks. That will widen the ideological gap, and swing more independents to one side rather the other, especially religious independents.

The big problem was while pressuring Franken and Conyers to resign is definitely the ethical thing to do, pragmatically it's far more of a failure, as it essentially hands more power to the GOP in Congress.

The GOP has no ethics or morals, is utterly ruthless, and is increasingly good at turning progressive ethics into a weapon that the GOP can wield against them. They've been doing it with the alt.right and "free speech", and now they're doing it with the issue of sexual harassment.

Again, it's the right thing to do morally and ethically; but pragmatically, too much emphasis on ethical purity amounts to slow suicide, barring a massive cultural sea change in this country.

Dr. Keith 7th December 2017 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105552)
Lol

Yes, the democrat party is replete personal responsibility. I hear them talk about all the time... oh wait. :rolleyes:

Exactly. One party talks about personal responsibility. The other party shows it through their actions. Finally seeing the light?

Dr. Keith 7th December 2017 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 12105735)
Well, for starters, they lose the propaganda battle. The GOP can now point to Conyers and Franken and say "Look at how immoral our opponents are", while at the same time denying their own accusers, asserting that the accusations are false and the result of leftist "fake news" political attacks. That will widen the ideological gap, and swing more independents to one side rather the other, especially religious independents.

I think the Dems are counting on voters to be smart and see through the smoke screen. In other words, I agree with you.

Quote:

The big problem was while pressuring Franken and Conyers to resign is definitely the ethical thing to do, pragmatically it's far more of a failure, as it essentially hands more power to the GOP in Congress.
Both will be replaced by Dems, but yes, two new senators are not worth the same as on very senior member and one who was very dogged.

Quote:

The GOP has no ethics or morals, is utterly ruthless, and is increasingly good at turning progressive ethics into a weapon that the GOP can wield against them. They've been doing it with the alt.right and "free speech", and now they're doing it with the issue of sexual harassment.
Are the voters at large going to start seeing through this, ever? Will the fact that the GOP is asking its voters to overlook so many glaring personal faults to get their candidates elected ever strike close to home? I doubt it, but it may.

Quote:

Again, it's the right thing to do morally and ethically; but pragmatically, too much emphasis on ethical purity amounts to slow suicide, barring a massive cultural sea change in this country.
Agreed. If there is a sea change, they will ride that wave like a boss. And if there isn't, they will have done the right thing and been punished appropriately for having done so.

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105692)
Repubs said that he would be expelled if elected...he would immediately be in an ethics proceeding when sworn in.

For allegations from decades ago.

An expulsion has not happened since 1862, related to the civil war.

Powerful people losing power? How horrible.

xjx388 7th December 2017 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105666)
How would Moore falsify that 40 year old claim? The claim doesn't even have a particular day so that Moore could show that he was out of town, for example.

Testimony given under oath is evidence in a court of law, sure.

That is during a due process proceeding.

Not on Twitter or Good Morning America.

I guess bigfoot is really real then, because I can find a hell of a lot of "testimony" about encountering and interacting with bigfoot, including being raped by bigfoot.

I have to echo this. Testimony all by itself is not "compelling" evidence in any other scenario where there is an extraordinary claim. One can argue that rape/child molesting is not an extraordinary claim because those things are real (unlike Bigfoot or UFOs). True, but to accuse a specific person of such a thing is an extraordinary claim because of the monumental impact it can have on that person; before we damn someone, we better have extremely good evidence. Testimony, even about relatively recent events, is not extremely good evidence. Now consider testimony about an event that happened 20+ years ago. Memory is not reliable on that timescale. All kinds of biases creep in. It's also possible that the accusers are just straight up lying. That is also something that is real.

In a case where the accused issues strong denials, what more is there to consider? The court of public opinion can only answer one question: Do we believe the accusers? For someone who is running for office, the voters have the stories and the denials so the election is the only "trial court" that matters. If the accused knows he is innocent, why should he get out of the race?

In Franken's case, we have testimony but we also have a picture. We also have his weak non-denials. Still not particularly strong evidence but better than just testimony about an alleged event that occurred 30+ years ago. He is also already an elected official; there are Ethics Committees to deal with. Ultimately, I think Franken was a victim of his own unreasonable position that we should "respect women's experiences;" that's what really came back to bite him in the ass. There is no need for an innocent person to respect experiences that do not coincide with reality.

kellyb 7th December 2017 02:19 PM

Quote:

True, but to accuse a specific person of such a thing is an extraordinary claim because of the monumental impact it can have on that person;
I completely disagree. The "extraordinary claim" principal involves the outlandishness of the claim, not personal negative consequences for one individual if true.

eta: lazily quoting rational wiki here:

Quote:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. However, Laplace writes: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[1] Also, David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[2]
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extrao...inary_evidence

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105833)
Powerful people losing power? How horrible.

I realize that you don't care and that our discussion doesn't matter overall as far as what happens to Moore or Franken or Trump, etc..

It's not necessary to be so flip about events that affect a lot of people, though.

You probably won't learn until the accusation train runs over someone you do care about.

crescent 7th December 2017 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105853)
I completely disagree. The "extraordinary claim" principal involves the outlandishness of the claim, not personal negative consequences for one individual if true.

Not to mention, our prisons are full of people convicted based on nothing more than victim testimony. When that is not sufficient to get a criminal conviction, civil suits can be won.

xjx388 7th December 2017 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 12105735)
The GOP has no ethics or morals, is utterly ruthless, and is increasingly good at turning progressive ethics into a weapon that the GOP can wield against them. They've been doing it with the alt.right and "free speech", and now they're doing it with the issue of sexual harassment.

I would take some issue with this. The progressives fashioned this particular sword with the whole "believe the accusers; respect women's experiences," line and had no problem using it against Republicans. Bill Clinton? A vast right wing conspiracy. Donald Trump? Believe the women. Once they created the weapon, it's a little too late to cry about it actually being used.

Quote:

Again, it's the right thing to do morally and ethically;
Is it? Do you really think, if Franken is indeed innocent, that he should fall on the sword his party created as some sort of sacrificial lamb to prove a point? That he should simply step down because respecting women's experiences is more important than the truth? That seems incredibly unfair to me. If he didn't do it, he should vehemently deny the charges and he should face no consequences.

Moore and Trump have vehemently denied the charges. That's the only shield that's been proven to fend off these kinds of attacks. You can complain about how the GOP is this evil outfit that defends child molesters and rapists but first shouldn't it be proven that the accused are actually guilty? Kind of hard to do when we don't have any proof of bad action other than stories.

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12105860)
Not to mention, our prisons are full of people convicted based on nothing more than victim testimony. When that is not sufficient to get a criminal conviction, civil suits can be won.

You describe due process...

TheL8Elvis 7th December 2017 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105853)
I completely disagree. The "extraordinary claim" principal involves the outlandishness of the claim, not personal negative consequences for one individual if true.

eta: lazily quoting rational wiki here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extrao...inary_evidence

:thumbsup:

kellyb 7th December 2017 02:28 PM

Quote:

Moore and Trump have vehemently denied the charges.
I thought Moore just said he didn't remember for sure if he was dating minors or not when he was in his 20's?

crescent 7th December 2017 02:29 PM

I get the clear impression that Franken's resignation has really frightened a lot of conservatives.

He killed the "whataboutism" defense.

They'll have to fall back to using Bill Clinton for the whatabout proxy, but he has been out of office too long to be very effective in that role.

Who's next?

pgwenthold 7th December 2017 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105853)
I completely disagree. The "extraordinary claim" principal involves the outlandishness of the claim, not personal negative consequences for one individual if true.

Exactly. Claiming that a guy is a creep who lusts over really young girls isn't extraordinary at all. In fact, creepy guys like that are all too commonplace. I mean, there is porn dedicated to it. Sure, it supposedly has an 18 yo age limit, but do you think that's because there aren't guys who wouldn't yank it for 17 yos? Or 16 yos? Or 15 yos?

No, claiming that a 30 yo guy is a creep around teenage girls is not an extraordinary claim at all.

crescent 7th December 2017 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105863)
You describe due process...

What is the due process when the statute of limitations has expired?

Without that, the evidence against Moore would be enough to win at least a civil suit.

kellyb 7th December 2017 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12105869)
I get the clear impression that Franken's resignation has really frightened a lot of conservatives.

He killed the "whataboutism" defense.

They'll have to fall back to using Bill Clinton for the whatabout proxy, but he has been out of office too long to be very effective in that role.

Who's next?

Modern progressive women tend to loathe Bill Clinton for that stuff, too. The man is no hero to us.

Stacko 7th December 2017 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105868)
I thought Moore just said he didn't remember for sure if he was dating minors or not when he was in his 20's?

Moore has gone with kettle logic. He's given multiple defenses some of which are contradictory.

xjx388 7th December 2017 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105853)
I completely disagree. The "extraordinary claim" principal involves the outlandishness of the claim, not personal negative consequences for one individual if true.

There's that too. To accuse a person of such a particularly heinous crime strikes me as outlandish. The assumption is that the accused is innocent. We should require more evidence than a story.

Quote:

eta: lazily quoting rational wiki here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extrao...inary_evidence
But the principal has much wider application than woo-fighting; it's a pillar of critical thinking. A just society must assume that the accused is innocent and we should only inflict consequences when sufficient evidence is presented. Testimony is not sufficient evidence. Enough to start an investigation, maybe but it shouldn't be enough to punish someone.

kellyb 7th December 2017 02:46 PM

Quote:

To accuse a person of such a particularly heinous crime strikes me as outlandish.
Huh?

Teenage girls are hit on by older men routinely in America. Ever heard the term "jail bait"?

xjx388 7th December 2017 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 12105871)
Exactly. Claiming that a guy is a creep who lusts over really young girls isn't extraordinary at all. In fact, creepy guys like that are all too commonplace. I mean, there is porn dedicated to it. Sure, it supposedly has an 18 yo age limit, but do you think that's because there aren't guys who wouldn't yank it for 17 yos? Or 16 yos? Or 15 yos?

No, claiming that a 30 yo guy is a creep around teenage girls is not an extraordinary claim at all.

Claiming that a particular guy is such a creep is an extraordinary claim. It's not like every guy is a potential creep; such behavior is relatively uncommon, especially to the degree that Moore is accused of.

If it were you being accused, you might have a different view of how extraordinary such a claim is.

crescent 7th December 2017 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105875)
Modern progressive women tend to loathe Bill Clinton for that stuff, too. The man is no hero to us.

I know - but he was defended at the time. Lewinsky, Jones, Broaddrick, and the others were not believed and had their reputations attacked. You and I and many others now look back on that with distaste, or, if we were old enough to be politically savvy at the time, shame. We (liberal/progressive/Democrats/and the like) changed our perception of such things, or were replaced by the newer generations.

A good many conservatives don't care about the change in lib/prog/dem perspective, though. They need a whatabout proxy, and Clinton is the best they have - and that's weak tea.

crescent 7th December 2017 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12105888)
Testimony is not sufficient evidence. Enough to start an investigation, maybe but it shouldn't be enough to punish someone.

You are really going to empty the prisons, aren't you? Seriously, a whole lot of people are in jail based on nothing more than personal testimony.

kellyb 7th December 2017 02:50 PM

Quote:

Testimony is not sufficient evidence.
I understand that sexual assault is borderline impossibly tricky to prosecute, because it's an evidence-free crime most of the time, but if you had a daughter who said the man next door groped or raped her, would you really be all "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" about it?

PhantomWolf 7th December 2017 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12105861)
Moore and Trump have vehemently denied the charges. That's the only shield that's been proven to fend off these kinds of attacks.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Trump is currently defending a Defamation Lawsuit in NY State based on his denials of sexual harassment and calling the accuser a liar among other things.

His lawyers are trying to get it quashed based on two things. 1) the Federal Jones vs Clinton case doesn't set a precedent for Civil Action cases to proceed against a sitting President in a State Court, and 2) that his calling the women, that accused him of sexual assault and harassment, liars and other names was "political opinion" and thus protected under the 1st Amendment.

The Judge is supposed to be making a ruling in the next few weeks, so we'll see what happens.

xjx388 7th December 2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105889)
Huh?

Teenage girls are hit on by older men routinely in America. Ever heard the term "jail bait"?

It's very easy to say that. But if you were to break down the numbers, I wonder what the actual percentage is of teen girls that have been hit on by older men. I wonder what percentage of men actually engage in such behavior. If you have some numbers to support your assertion, I'd like to see them.

And let's be clear. We are talking about more than hitting on teen girls. How many men engage in that kind of behavior?

I seriously doubt that we are talking about the majority of men.

TheL8Elvis 7th December 2017 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12105907)
It's very easy to say that. But if you were to break down the numbers, I wonder what the actual percentage is of teen girls that have been hit on by older men. I wonder what percentage of men actually engage in such behavior. If you have some numbers to support your assertion, I'd like to see them.

And let's be clear. We are talking about more than hitting on teen girls. How many men engage in that kind of behavior?

I seriously doubt that we are talking about the majority of men.

Keep digging, it's funny.

Dr. Keith 7th December 2017 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12105910)
Keep digging, it's funny.

Funny? I guess Sad is overused.

acbytesla 7th December 2017 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12105907)
It's very easy to say that. But if you were to break down the numbers, I wonder what the actual percentage is of teen girls that have been hit on by older men. I wonder what percentage of men actually engage in such behavior. If you have some numbers to support your assertion, I'd like to see them.

And let's be clear. We are talking about more than hitting on teen girls. How many men engage in that kind of behavior?

I seriously doubt that we are talking about the majority of men.

I agree. I knew one guy who dated teenagers in his 30s and we all thought he was a sleaze. He didn't think anything of it though. Imagine a work Christmas party where most of the men in their 30s and 40s show up with wives and a few with their girlfriends and this guy shows up with an 18 year old still in high school.

acbytesla 7th December 2017 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12105894)
I know - but he was defended at the time. Lewinsky, Jones, Broaddrick, and the others were not believed and had their reputations attacked. You and I and many others now look back on that with distaste, or, if we were old enough to be politically savvy at the time, shame. We (liberal/progressive/Democrats/and the like) changed our perception of such things, or were replaced by the newer generations.

A good many conservatives don't care about the change in lib/prog/dem perspective, though. They need a whatabout proxy, and Clinton is the best they have - and that's weak tea.

Lewinsky didn't accuse Clinton of any misbehavior.

ahhell 7th December 2017 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12105922)
Lewinsky didn't accuse Clinton of any misbehavior.

Others did though,

xjx388 7th December 2017 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellyb (Post 12105898)
I understand that sexual assault is borderline impossibly tricky to prosecute, because it's an evidence-free crime most of the time, but if you had a daughter who said the man next door groped or raped her, would you really be all "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" about it?

Rape and groping happens. If my daughter reported it, I would want it investigated. It's funny you bring it up because when my daughter was 16, she used to take our dog to Petsmart for training class. The instructor was a 28 yo guy who hit on her and asked to take her out for a date. She told me immediately about it and I needed to see if he was actually doing this or if maybe she was misinterpreting something. So next class, she actually arranged to meet him a street away from my house, ostensibly to sneak out for a date. He pulled up and I pulled up behind him and got out and confronted him. I also got him fired from his job. I didn't just act on her word alone and start throwing out accusations; I needed to see the evidence.

By the same token, if someone you love was accused of rape or groping, I don't think you are going to just accept that accusation as the truth. You are going to want evidence.

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12105936)
By the same token, if someone you love was accused of rape or groping, I don't think you are going to just accept that accusation as the truth. You are going to want evidence.

To do what? I'm completely content to stop talking to the guy over that.

Cain 7th December 2017 03:47 PM

I love how liberals are always complaining that life is "unfaaaaaaair." Yes, Dems are losing representatives and undermining the effectiveness of their political coalition, but take some personal responsibility. They CHOOSE to be constrained by conventional notions of "basic moral decency." Losers make excuses; winners grab 'em by the pussy.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:31 PM.

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