Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 148.2: Still, Don't Sexually Assault People

(+) Yeah! (+)

Continuing this.
---

Now, in response to xp1337:

Coming up with a host of examples is a bit more than I care to undertake at this time. I'll do a sliding scale based off the incident in question:

Do Nothing - Current Situation. It's a one-off incident, specifically one that happened PRIOR to Franken's election to off, and it's an incident that's up to interpretation as to its severity. Al Franken apologized sincerely within hours of the accusation and his accuser accepted the apology.

Censure - Similar to the current situation, but with denial and deflection, rather than an apology. Again, it's a one-off situation, but in this instance, the conduct of the accused is more unbecoming of a U.S. senator. Equally, if the incident happened DURING his tenure as a U.S. senator, then he should be censured, even if he displays genuine remorse and the apology is accepted.

Resignation - Regardless of apologies, if three-five incidents are reported and corroborated (and you can quote me on this if it comes to fruition later), then calls for resignation are completely fair game. I don't care about the circumstances, three incidents show a pattern of behavior that cannot be overlooked. OR, if there was a single incident that involved some form of rape, then one incident is enough to call for resignation.

Expulsion - Six or more incidents are reported and corroborated, constant denials and refusal to resign. Multiple instances of rape.
---

Inviso posted...

Coming up with a host of examples is a bit more than I care to undertake at this time.

well i mean the point of the thought exercise i was presenting relied on this soooo
---

To Kenri:

Given that the accuser accepted Franken's apology, I don't see the problem. The way you're describing it is less punishing him for what HE did and more making an example of him for the injustices leveled against victims EVERYWHERE. And that seems WILDLY unfair.
---

oh i already made my stupid joke in corrik's topic
---

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.

I'd just like to repeat this since my previous post was taken the wrong way, apparently.
---

T-there's two of them!

...now how do I know which one to shoot?
---

Inviso posted...

Now, in response to xp1337:

Coming up with a host of examples is a bit more than I care to undertake at this time. I'll do a sliding scale based off the incident in question:

Do Nothing - Current Situation. It's a one-off incident, specifically one that happened PRIOR to Franken's election to off, and it's an incident that's up to interpretation as to its severity. Al Franken apologized sincerely within hours of the accusation and his accuser accepted the apology.

Censure - Similar to the current situation, but with denial and deflection, rather than an apology. Again, it's a one-off situation, but in this instance, the conduct of the accused is more unbecoming of a U.S. senator. Equally, if the incident happened DURING his tenure as a U.S. senator, then he should be censured, even if he displays genuine remorse and the apology is accepted.

Resignation - Regardless of apologies, if three-five incidents are reported and corroborated (and you can quote me on this if it comes to fruition later), then calls for resignation are completely fair game. I don't care about the circumstances, three incidents show a pattern of behavior that cannot be overlooked. OR, if there was a single incident that involved some form of rape, then one incident is enough to call for resignation.

Expulsion - Six or more incidents are reported and corroborated, constant denials and refusal to resign. Multiple instances of rape.

Recall election?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Inviso posted...

Now, in response to xp1337:

Coming up with a host of examples is a bit more than I care to undertake at this time. I'll do a sliding scale based off the incident in question:

Do Nothing - Current Situation. It's a one-off incident, specifically one that happened PRIOR to Franken's election to off, and it's an incident that's up to interpretation as to its severity. Al Franken apologized sincerely within hours of the accusation and his accuser accepted the apology.

Censure - Similar to the current situation, but with denial and deflection, rather than an apology. Again, it's a one-off situation, but in this instance, the conduct of the accused is more unbecoming of a U.S. senator. Equally, if the incident happened DURING his tenure as a U.S. senator, then he should be censured, even if he displays genuine remorse and the apology is accepted.

Resignation - Regardless of apologies, if three-five incidents are reported and corroborated (and you can quote me on this if it comes to fruition later), then calls for resignation are completely fair game. I don't care about the circumstances, three incidents show a pattern of behavior that cannot be overlooked. OR, if there was a single incident that involved some form of rape, then one incident is enough to call for resignation.

Expulsion - Six or more incidents are reported and corroborated, constant denials and refusal to resign. Multiple instances of rape.

Recall election?

If that's a thing we can do, then yes, I think that's a fair statement.

ETA: However, I don't think it should just be a one and done thing. I think there should be an initial vote to see if the people of Minnesota want a recall election to begin with. If so, then go for it.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

T-there's two of them!

there is?
---

Inviso posted...

ETA: However, I don't think it should just be a one and done thing. I think there should be an initial vote to see if the people of Minnesota want a recall election to begin with. If so, then go for it.

Fair, but I feel its a bit redundant.

People who want a recall election but would still vote for him to stay in are probably a small minority
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Inviso posted...

ETA: However, I don't think it should just be a one and done thing. I think there should be an initial vote to see if the people of Minnesota want a recall election to begin with. If so, then go for it.

Fair, but I feel its a bit redundant.

People who want a recall election but would still vote for him to stay in are probably a small minority

I know, I was just thinking of Scott Walker. As shitty of a person as he is, he had one or two recall elections, and the voters re-elected him both times. Maybe the initial ballot could be decided on by the Minnesota legislature or something.
---

I think its funny that some conservatives probably went into this whole story thinking progressives would be hypocritical, and now its the complete opposite, they think were going too far <_<
---

StealThisSheen posted...

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.

I'd just like to repeat this since my previous post was taken the wrong way, apparently.

Yeah. I mean, I disagree with Rock on this subject in general, but this reaction makes his arguments feel more based in emotion than in logic. Roy Moore committed verifiable crimes towards six women (I think he has nine accusers, but three are not criminal in nature). Al Franken, at least POSSIBLY, had a lapse in judgement that could be considered a mistake, towards ONE verifiable individual. To expect Franken to recall and disclose an event that he may not have even realized was an issue feels far too strict given the circumstances, and it paints a picture of Rock's overall mindset that, even if unintentional, comes off in a highly negative fashion.
---

I'll admit that the apology being accepted throws a wrench into my thinking here.

Initially it was an easy call for him to resign. I'm a bit less sure now.
---

Inviso posted...

and it paints a picture of Rock's overall mindset that, even if unintentional, comes off in a highly negative fashion.

really

I don't think I had any trouble following Rock's reasoning and if you forced me to take sides here I'd say it was your repeated insistence to him that he was making an equivalence that he repeatedly denied that felt more emotionally based to me.
---

All this talk about Franken reminds me that Mike Huckabee stole my Franken/Stein 2020 joke.

Damn it
---

Inviso posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

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.

I'd just like to repeat this since my previous post was taken the wrong way, apparently.

Yeah. I mean, I disagree with Rock on this subject in general, but this reaction makes his arguments feel more based in emotion than in logic. Roy Moore committed verifiable crimes towards six women (I think he has nine accusers, but three are not criminal in nature). Al Franken, at least POSSIBLY, had a lapse in judgement that could be considered a mistake, towards ONE verifiable individual. To expect Franken to recall and disclose an event that he may not have even realized was an issue feels far too strict given the circumstances, and it paints a picture of Rock's overall mindset that, even if unintentional, comes off in a highly negative fashion.

It's more like getting accused of equating Moore's accusations with Franken's for the millionth fucking time makes these topics not worth any of my time anymore.
---

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

and it paints a picture of Rock's overall mindset that, even if unintentional, comes off in a highly negative fashion.

really

I don't think I had any trouble following Rock's reasoning and if you forced me to take sides here I'd say it was your repeated insistence to him that he was making an equivalence that he repeatedly denied that felt more emotionally based to me.

Really.

So you think it's fair to condemn Franken for issuing an apology after accused, because if he was REALLY sorry, he would've come clean before any of this came out.

That's the mindset Rock started with in the previous topic.
---

I read what Rock meant, restated it in plain English in one easy sentence, and he agreed with my interpretation of what he was saying

So if you want to actually digest what he's saying instead of trying to force him onto a platform that's easier to argue down then you should start there
---

Lopen posted...

I read what Rock meant, restated it in plain English in one easy sentence, and he agreed with my interpretation of what he was saying

So if you want to actually digest what he's saying instead of trying to force him onto a platform that's easier to argue down then you should start there

is rock not saying that franken should have disclosed the unwanted kiss? i can't see how his words can be interpreted differently.
---

That's a very minor part of what he's saying so focusing on that element is asinine
---

i don't care what mindset you're saying he started with

I'm talking about the actions that led him to close the topic. Which is where you kept insisting he was saying there was a moral equivalence between Moore and Franken because you completely disregarded what he kept trying to say and kept trying to force a false binary-like choice on the issue.

Even if you honestly believe that's what he was doing it was pretty clear that you're aggressive persistence in repeating that was getting to him and was never going to succeed in anything but driving him out without actually having a real chance to try to get to the bottom of your disagreement.
---

The shoulds and wills argument is still coming from an unbelievably high standard for his "shoulds" though. I mean, I agree that I'm coming more from the perspective of what WILL happen informing what I think SHOULD happen, but I think there is a line in terms of what is reasonable in terms of a "should". And when Rock comes in making the argument that Al Franken SHOULD have disclosed this incident when he was running for office originally (despite the fact that he very reasonably could've seen no problem with this incident and thus no reason to disclose it), that indicates his initial mindset as being one where there is no nuance in this accusation whatsoever. Franken is 100% guilty and should be punished. And THAT mentality is where the connection to Roy Moore comes in, even if it's not intentional.
---

I lost my last post from the topic closing early, so I'll just post this:

11/17/2017
USA TODAY - White House on sex assault allegations: 'Franken has admitted wrongdoing and the president hasn?t'

"Specifically, Sen. Franken has admitted wrongdoing and the president hasn?t," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Friday. "That's a very clear distinction."

Trump opened the floodgates to questions about sexual harassment on Friday after he excoriated the Minnesota Democrat for allegedly harassing a fellow entertainer in 2006, before his time in Congress.

http://tinyurl.com/yd2mjusl
---

I don't think not forcing yourself on a woman is an unbelievably high standard
---

Lopen posted...

That's a very minor part of what he's saying so focusing on that element is asinine

Please don't lump me in with Inviso. I already called out Inviso for acting dumb in the last topic.

I was merely debating Rock's initial point of "It's fair to get fired from a job for not disclosing something." I'm not trying to say he's equating the two overall, I'm merely trying to debate the difference between them in that one specific point.
---

Lopen posted...

I don't think not forcing yourself on a woman is an unbelievably high standard

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

It's more like getting accused of equating Moore's accusations with Franken's for the millionth fucking time makes these topics not worth any of my time anymore.

I apologize, and that truly wasn't my intention. Inviso's going of on his own dumb tangent, and I'm not at all trying to agree with it. I was mainly still in the past, trying to debate the "job" point. I wasn't trying to make accusations.
---

Inviso posted...

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

Inviso posted...

The shoulds and wills argument is still coming from an unbelievably high standard for his "shoulds" though.

Literally what you're implying with this statement. If you don't think you're implying that, you simply aren't even attempting to read Rock's posts.
---

Inviso posted...

To Kenri:

Given that the accuser accepted Franken's apology, I don't see the problem. The way you're describing it is less punishing him for what HE did and more making an example of him for the injustices leveled against victims EVERYWHERE. And that seems WILDLY unfair.

I mean, you're fine with exonerating him in order to incentivize other people to confess, but like... the point of a confession is typically to accept a punishment. If you're not punished, a confession is just gloating. Yeah, I'd rather make an example of him than that, and I think resignation is a fair punishment that still makes an example of him.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I was merely debating Rock's initial point of "It's fair to get fired from a job for not disclosing something." I'm not trying to say he's equating the two overall, I'm merely trying to debate the difference between them in that one specific point.

Sure.

For the record I think that was more a heat of the moment thing he didn't fully examine that he sorta just argued at will and not really central to his point.

The core of his point is more that we should hold people in political office to exceptionally high moral standards more than anything. Then someone did a lateral to win an argument and tried to make it a disclosed it vs didn't disclose it thing and rock wasn't really thinking fully and basically argued into a trap.
---

I wonder if we actually implemented a set high standard how many senators/reps/judges/everything we'd have left
---

FFDragon posted...

I wonder if we actually implemented a set high standard how many senators/reps/judges/everything we'd have left

there's always the old joke that running for office means you're not qualified to hold it
---

Lopen posted...

That's a very minor part of what he's saying so focusing on that element is asinine

it's the only part of his position i personally disagree with so i'd like to focus on it.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

I was merely debating Rock's initial point of "It's fair to get fired from a job for not disclosing something." I'm not trying to say he's equating the two overall, I'm merely trying to debate the difference between them in that one specific point.

Sure.

For the record I think that was more a heat of the moment thing he didn't fully examine that he sorta just argued at will and not really central to his point.

The core of his point is more that we should hold people in political office to exceptionally high moral standards more than anything. Then someone did a lateral to win an argument and tried to make it a disclosed it vs didn't disclose it thing and rock wasn't really thinking fully and basically argued into a trap.

Oh. Well, that's fair enough. I didn't really get into that because I don't think there's really an argument there. We should hold them to higher standards. I don't disagree with that.

I merely started trying to discuss the other point because it was brought up. >_>
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lopen posted...

That's a very minor part of what he's saying so focusing on that element is asinine

it's the only part of his position i personally disagree with so i'd like to focus on it.

There are ways to do this without trying to paint the guy as saying Moore and Franken deserve equal punishment. Hell, if you're very clear about agreeing with him on everything but that it makes it a lot easier to focus on that specific point.
---

Lopen posted...

There are ways to do this without trying to paint the guy as saying Moore and Franken deserve equal punishment. Hell, if you're very clear about agreeing with him on everything but that it makes it a lot easier to focus on that specific point.

not sure if you're attacking me here but i never tried to paint the guy as saying anything as i didn't even post during the argument in the previous topic so...
---

Yeah it was the royal you not the you you.
---

Lopen posted...

Inviso posted...

Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

Inviso posted...

The shoulds and wills argument is still coming from an unbelievably high standard for his "shoulds" though.

Literally what you're implying with this statement. If you don't think you're implying that, you simply aren't even attempting to read Rock's posts.

Do you, Lopen, think it is reasonable to expect a person campaigning for office to recall a single incident of malfeasance that may not have registered to them as wrong at the time the incident transpired?

Do you, Lopen, think it is fair to call an apology from the above-mentioned person disingenuous specifically because they only apologized after being accused?

That's how I'm viewing Rock's attitude with regards to this whole situation. I believe that while, yes, the accusations against Al Franken are bad, there is a level of nuance that can be applied to them, that Rock is not applying. Instead, he went directly along the "Al Franken should resign" line of thought. That's why I said he is UNINTENTIONALLY equating the actions of Franken and Moore. One is accused by a single woman of inappropriate sexual conduct, the other is accused by multiple women of sexual assault. Yet the line of argument he's creating is that BOTH should be forced out of the Senate. That is the BASELINE he is setting, that regardless of severity or nuance, you should suffer the maximum possible punishment the SENATE has to offer. Saying that Roy Moore should be tried in court after the fact does not change anything. It's just tacking on an extra punishment beyond the Senate itself.
---

Inviso posted...

That's how I'm viewing Rock's attitude with regards to this whole situation

Yes I know you're doing that because it's an easier thing to argue against and you'd rather win an argument that understand his actual point
---

Kenri posted...

Inviso posted...

To Kenri:

Given that the accuser accepted Franken's apology, I don't see the problem. The way you're describing it is less punishing him for what HE did and more making an example of him for the injustices leveled against victims EVERYWHERE. And that seems WILDLY unfair.

I mean, you're fine with exonerating him in order to incentivize other people to confess, but like... the point of a confession is typically to accept a punishment. If you're not punished, a confession is just gloating. Yeah, I'd rather make an example of him than that, and I think resignation is a fair punishment that still makes an example of him.

An apology and actively calling for an investigation into your own potential wrongdoing seems fair at this point in time, rather than immediately treating him on the same level as Anthony Weiner.
---

Lopen posted...

Inviso posted...

That's how I'm viewing Rock's attitude with regards to this whole situation

Yes I know you're doing that because it's an easier thing to argue against and you'd rather win an argument that understand his actual point

Answer the questions I posited to you. You are LITERALLY doing the thing to me that you're accusing me of doing to Rock.
---

I'm not doing what you did to Rock. I'm refusing to let you do to me what you did to Rock, actually.
---

Moore has been accused but has denied it and there is no proof (now he absolutely did it which is why Mitch would kick him out)

Franken we have proof he did it and he admitted as such. He should be unemployed and if he doesn't resign then Mitch should bring it up to have him expelled.

Anyone who disagrees with these is being completely obtuse or hypocritical.

Lopen posted...

I'm not doing what you did to Rock. I'm actually refusing to let you do to me what you did to Rock, actually.

Oh, okay. So when I use Rock's posts and the things he says to illustrate the way his arguments come across, I'M just putting words in his mouth, but when you make a post like this:

"Yes I know you're doing that because it's an easier thing to argue against and you'd rather win an argument that understand his actual point"

You're totally NOT psychoanalyzing me and putting words in my mouth. Got it.
---

The difference is I'm not putting words in your mouth as much as describing what you're literally doing.

I mean you just attempted to do it to me by asking me questions about your original point, completely ignoring the point I was making which is that "on the grand scheme of things, that was very minor to what Rock was getting at"

It's either stupid debate club tricks or a lack of reading comprehension on your part. I am interested in humoring neither.
---

Inviso posted...

Yet the line of argument he's creating is that BOTH should be forced out of the Senate. That is the BASELINE he is setting, that regardless of severity or nuance, you should suffer the maximum possible punishment the SENATE has to offer. Saying that Roy Moore should be tried in court after the fact does not change anything. It's just tacking on an extra punishment beyond the Senate itself.

First off, you're just flat-out wrong about resignation being the maximum possible punishment from the Senate. That would be expulsion.

Secondly, the calls for Moore to be expelled if elected are thus actually "harsher" than calling for Franken to resign. (Again, ignoring that it's literally voluntary. The other 99 Senators can all call for him to resign but only Franken can decide that, there is no element of force in play)

Thirdly, dismissing "tried in court" because it's outside the Senate is asinine and disingenuous. Let's frame this another way. On a scale of consequences that ranges from 0-10. Let's say Resignation from the Senate rates a 2. Expulsion is a 3. Because in both cases you're "just" losing a job when in most cases you're already very wealthy.

You can subsequently believe that Franken merits say a 2, and Moore warrants a 9 on that scale and you still lead to an outcome where they're both not in the Senate. Since the Senate doesn't have any recourse to handle anything above a 3 you have to turn to the courts or something for more.
---

Lopen posted...

The difference is I'm not putting words in your mouth as much as describing what you're literally doing.

"you'd rather win an argument than understand his actual point" isn't "describing what he's literally doing." it's making an assumption about something you can't possibly know because you're unable to look into his head.
---

I mean it's either that or he's an idiot who can't read I figured I'd take the more flattering position
---