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)

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079873)
You were there?

No, but I understand the nature of still photography. Iíd be delighted to walk you through that.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079880)
If you see a slut in those images, I think that is your true problem here.

If not, I think you are vile for fun.

Slut shaming is an expression of a tactic used to discredit women, such as it is being used here. She worked at hooters, she posed for playboy, here are pictures!

You have quite notably failed to address why those nsfw photos were necessary in connection with FRANKEN’S conduct.

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited to remove response to moderated material.

theprestige 16th November 2017 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12079784)
And Franken is willing to go before the Senate Ethics Committee and face the consequences. It doesn't excuse what he did, but at least it's an acknowledgment that he knows he did something wrong.

A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

Elagabalus 16th November 2017 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079691)
We havenít gotten as far as did he actually grab them. There was also a witness to that. Besides, it looks to me like heís touching. Itís clearly assault.

He is not touching "them" as you can plainly see by the shadow of the flash.

logger 16th November 2017 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079878)
That's not the way it works, if you want to go legal then it's up to you to show that he was touching. I believe there is a lot of doubt to that.

This isn’t headed to court, it’s going to be handled politically.

Giz 16th November 2017 08:42 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.

It's a bit like that scene from "The Accused", starring Jodie foster:

"The DA is unimpressed by Sarah's behavior as she had dressed provocatively that night at the bar and was also drinking heavily and showing a lot of cleavage."

Oystein 16th November 2017 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079884)
Slut shaming is an expression of a tactic used to discredit women, such as it is being used here. She worked at hooters, she posed for playboy, here are pictures!

You have quite notably failed to address why those nsfw photos were necessary in connection with FRANKEN’S conduct.

Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

Portayed as victim, not as slut.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079881)
No, but I understand the nature of still photography. Iíd be delighted to walk you through that.

The nature of still photography has nothing to do with anything that happened on the plane. Unless you were actually there, or you have exclusive testimony of someone that was, there is no way to tell what occurred based on one photograph.

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079873)
You were there?

Maybe he read Trump's Tweet: The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....

Minoosh 16th November 2017 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079866)
I can say for sure that photo does not document the entirety of frankenís conduct while the victim was sleeping on that plane.

Still photographs are funny that way.

Oystein 16th November 2017 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12079888)
A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

Well good thing that's not a trial and Franken is not a defendant.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079890)
This isnít headed to court, itís going to be handled politically.

Either way, if you want to claim that his hands are touching, then you need to show your working.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079896)
Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

Portayed as victim, not as slut.

Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the totally unnecessary posting of her nsfw pictures.

:eye-poppi

Talk about vile nonsense.

Pure slut shaming.

Oystein 16th November 2017 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079910)
Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the ... posting of her nsfw pictures
....

With a little snipping, what you wrote is correct :)

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079910)
Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the totally unnecessary posting of her nsfw pictures.

:eye-poppi

Talk about vile nonsense.

Pure slut shaming.

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.

NoahFence 16th November 2017 09:03 PM

The trump tard in chief

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079913)
With a little snipping, what you wrote is correct :)

that makes the posting of her nsfw pictures just gratuitous.

I really did not believe you could make a terrible argument worse but you have managed to do so.

Using her photos to discredit her is slut shaming, and creating a ludicrous interim step is specious.

The emphasis here is Frankenís conduct and anything focusing on her looks, dress, career or photos is abhorrent slut shaming.

johnny karate 16th November 2017 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12079888)
A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

A defendant who turns himself in does.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:11 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.

Attack her obviously transparently false justification for bringing up the victims work history and posting nsfw pictures while ignoring the actual purpose of posting those things?

She is attacking the victim using the most transparently idiotic justification possible and you think it is wrong for me to point out that she is slut shaming the Victim?

That is a big negative. I cannot believe that people are trying to defend this conduct.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079919)
The emphasis here is Frankenís conduct and anything focusing on her looks, dress, career or photos is abhorrent slut shaming.

This is just incorrect. Slut Shaming is when the victim is blamed for the offender's actions due to their career, clothing, looks, or actions. It's saying that the victim was responsible for the offender's actions because of what she did or how she looked. That is not what SG did.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079932)
This is just incorrect. Slut Shaming is when the victim is blamed for the offender's actions due to their career, clothing, looks, or actions. It's saying that the victim was responsible for the offender's actions because of what she did or how she looked. That is not what SG did.

Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079929)
Attack her obviously transparently false justification for bringing up the victims work history and posting nsfw pictures while ignoring the actual purpose of posting those things?

I'm arguing that you are ignoring the intended reason for bringing it up. Bringing up the victim's history to say "She's likely to have been abuse a number of times" is not the same as bringing it up to say "It's her fault she was abused." You're creating a strawman because you are demanding that your interpretation is the only possible true one, and then attack that, even after being told you are wrong in your conclusions. Time to drop it.

Quote:

She is attacking the victim using the most transparently idiotic justification possible and you think it is wrong for me to point out that she is slut shaming the Victim?
No, she pointed out that she thought it was funny that the victim went after Franken and not others that likely have done similar to her, and suggested that such a thing might mean it's political. That is not slut shaming. Slut Shaming is blaming the victim for what happened to them. SG did not do that, despite your claims.

Quote:

That is a big negative. I cannot believe that people are trying to defend this conduct.
Yup, just keep up the strawmanning, at this rate Walmart is going to run out of scarecrows.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079938)
Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

That wasn't done either, unless you think that being a bikini model makes her "promiscuous or sexually provocative"? Do you?

xjx388 16th November 2017 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079896)
Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

You need to stop calling it a lie. You may disagree with that opinion (for some strange reason) but your disagreement does not make the opinion a lie.

Quote:

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken.
Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for.
Quote:

Again, I do not agree with this argument!
That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile?
Quote:

Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

Portayed as victim, not as slut.
Do I understand you correctly? 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? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. 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. 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.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079940)
No, she pointed out that she thought it was funny that the victim went after Franken and not others that likely have done similar to her, and suggested that such a thing might mean it's political.

And to prove the highlighted rank speculation? Well here are some nsfw photos and her work history at hooters.

blatant, egregious, irrelevant slut shaming which is used solely to discredit her.

Pterodactyl 16th November 2017 09:33 PM

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 Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
You need to stop calling it a lie. You may disagree with that opinion (for some strange reason) but your disagreement does not make the opinion a lie.

Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for. That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile? Do I understand you correctly? 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? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. 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. 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.

very well said....

Travis 16th November 2017 09:38 PM

It's like there is a race to try and catch people being hypocritical that has seemingly turned off critical thinking.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079946)
-Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for. That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile? Do I understand you correctly? 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? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. 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.

You really should have stopped here, because I agreed for the most part, it is a silly argument, it's full of holes and was pointless to try and use, and TDB could have attacked it pretty easily without resorting to strawmen.

Quote:

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.
And this is where we part way, for a start, when I looked at the pictures I was basically, "oh, she's been an underwear model, I can see what SG is saying, don't agree, but I can get it." I didn't think, "OMG she posed in her underwear, she must be a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead." In fact, I'd go as far as to say that those that would think that was the argument that women that model in their undies, bikinis, or less, are "promiscuous or sexually provocative" or that they are "wom[e]n who has no problem using her body to get ahead" are the ones that think of women in those terms because otherwise, why would it even occur to the viewer that someone was trying to hide that message in their actual argument rather then taking it on face value?

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079952)
And to prove the highlighted rank speculation? Well here are some nsfw photos and her work history at hooters.

No, it was a case of, here are images of the work she did, and from that SG provided the rank speculation that she would have encountered abuse because of that work. I agree that it's speculation and unfounded and that SGH was wrong in her assumptions, attack her arguments on that, don't change them to what you want them to be and attack that, that's called a strawman.

Quote:

blatant, egregious, irrelevant slut shaming which is used solely to discredit her.
Only if you are of the opinion that being a bikini/underwear/nude model or working for Hooters makes one a slut and hence it lowers her credibility. If you don't believe that it does, then the NSFW images should have zero effect on her credibility.

llwyd 16th November 2017 09:50 PM

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

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12079307)
You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.

Link is NSFW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079968)
No, it was a case of, here are images of the work she did, and from that SG provided the rank speculation that she would have encountered abuse because of that work. I agree that it's speculation and unfounded and that SGH was wrong in her assumptions, attack her arguments on that, don't change them to what you want them to be and attack that, that's called a strawman.

Only if you are of the opinion that being a bikini/underwear/nude model or working for Hooters makes one a slut and hence it lowers her credibility. If you don't believe that it does, then the NSFW images should have zero effect on her credibility.

Yet, I did not post them, SG posted them, and then argued they were evidence that the claims were politically motivated.

Pointing out that the pictures were gratuitous nonsense going to the victim's character is not a straw man.

The indefensible hills that some people choose to make a stand on, really quite remarkable...

quadraginta 16th November 2017 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079942)
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079938)
Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

That wasn't done either, unless you think that being a bikini model makes her "promiscuous or sexually provocative"? Do you?


I don't think there's much question about it being intended to be "sexually provocative". After all, there's a reason they don't use fat, ugly models. But I see no reason why that should be "stigmatizing".

As for "promiscuous", I don't understand how that enters into it at all. Modelling is just a job. Models can be happily married, or in committed relationships, or just not interested. There's no reason to think that just because they model swimsuits and lingerie that means they are promiscuous.

TBD seems to disagree, though. Maybe he can explain why.

Minoosh 16th November 2017 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12079892)
It's a bit like that scene from "The Accused", starring Jodie foster:

"The DA is unimpressed by Sarah's behavior as she had dressed provocatively that night at the bar and was also drinking heavily and showing a lot of cleavage."

This is Franken's "Abu Grab."

ETA: But be aware that the scale of Franken's offense is not like a drunken crowd gang-banging a woman.

Pterodactyl 16th November 2017 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12079981)
This is Franken's "Abu Grab."

ETA: But be aware that the scale of Franken's offense is not like a drunken crowd gang-banging a woman.


But see, that's the problem.

There is no "scale of offense".

In this climate you're either offender, victim, or sympathizer.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079976)
Yet, I did not post them, SG posted them, and then argued they were evidence that the claims were politically motivated.

Pointing out that the pictures were gratuitous nonsense going to the victim's character is not a straw man.

The indefensible hills that some people choose to make a stand on, really quite remarkable...

Incredible you post the original post and it's like you don't even reads it, no you paste your interpretation over the top of the actual argument that was made and then claim that's not a strawman. TBDm making up someone else argument or claiming that they were arguing something they didn't actually say is the quintessential meaning of Strawman.

Here is SG's argument...

Quote:

You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.
Attack that. The pictures were linked to to show that the victim worked in industries that SG believed were filled with Sexual Abuse and Harassment. She made incorrect assumptions that by being a model she'd have "a gazillion worse complaints", an argument that fails from the outset, but it's not the one you are claiming she made, and in changing her argument from what was actually made to what you keep demanding we accept it to be, you are creating a strawman. Again and again and again. You can't just declare that the argument made isn't the argument made even if you think it was something else. You have to deal with what was written not what you make up in your head and believe to have been said.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12079980)
I don't think there's much question about it being intended to be "sexually provocative". After all, there's a reason they don't use fat, ugly models. But I see no reason why that should be "stigmatizing".

As for "promiscuous", I don't understand how that enters into it at all. Modelling is just a job. Models can be happily married, or in committed relationships, or just not interested. There's no reason to think that just because they model swimsuits and lingerie that means they are promiscuous.

TBD seems to disagree, though. Maybe he can explain why.

The imagery yes, because it's usually trying to sell something, be it for an ad or a magazine, but just because the model is in a "sexually provocative" image, doesn't mean that she is being "sexually provocative". There is a distinction between the two things.

ChristianProgressive 16th November 2017 10:09 PM

Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

Travis 16th November 2017 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive (Post 12079996)
Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.


No. Don't you get it? It is all always equal no matter what! Draw and quarter him! Put the head on a spike on London Bridge!

Why people can't even just admit that while lots of people do bad things the way they react to it is just as telling about their character as the transgression itself?

xjx388 16th November 2017 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive (Post 12079996)
Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

Why isn't it suspicious when, say, Moore's accusers came forward as he was running for the Senate or when accusers came forward just when Trump ran for President?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM.

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