LogFAQs > #890591465

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicPolitics Containment Topic 148: Don't Sexually Assault People
StealThisSheen
11/17/17 6:59:29 PM
#275:


TheRock1525 posted...
StealThisSheen posted...
It sounds like a non-black/white issue that he presumably didn't know was a problem to disclose in the first place, so treating it as a "He didn't disclose it so shame on him" the same as Moore, who knowingly broke the law, is a bit silly.


I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Jesus fucking Christ do I need to bold it?

I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Now all caps.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

Now all caps and bold.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

OK, do you get it now? Can we stop accusing me of something I'm literally not doing?


I'm not saying you're equating the ENTIRE thing to Moore, but you're equating the one piece, which is "He didn't disclose it," which is the point I'm trying to make.

Moore did something illegal. The normal person should think "Hey, I should disclose this."

Franken's is ambiguous as far as how much he actually knew of what damage what he did caused. So treating it under the same "this should be disclosed" umbrella is expecting a bit much.

That's the only part I said you're equating, in that you're saying both acts fall under the "Should have been disclosed" umbrella. The argument others have had is that Franken's is not so black and white in so far as knowing it was a problem to even need to be disclosed in the first place.
---
Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1