Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny

Argumemnon said:
I didn't say you did, I asked you a question.
Click to expand...

A question which is based on something I haven't said.
Argumemnon said:
You brought up rape when I mentioned implicit agreements, so I want to know if you had issue with my statement about those, or if you were just derailing the discussion for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been quicker and easier to just ask me that?
 
Darat said:
That was part of the reasoning for many of the laws in various countries that said a husband couldn't rape his wife because by marrying there was implicit consent.
Click to expand...

Sure, but such laws presume that implicit consent cannot be explicitly revoked at any time. That's what makes them ludicrous.
 
I believe Trump is a pussy grabber who is otherwise unfit for the office of the presidency. I believe Al Franken badgered Tweeden into agreeing to rehearse a kiss with the full intention of deploying tongue, probably because his twisted comedian mentality thought that would be funny. I believe Roy Moore is too stupid to be sent to Washington.

I believe all the above because the perps said so and/or compelling evidence exists.

The obvious solutions: lame-duck Trump in 2018 and send him packing in 2020. Make Franken the object of an ethics investigation and live with the outcome. Don't elect Moore.

But these solutions are too obvious and too sane, so the Franken probe is likely to be the only one that will be implemented.
 
Cain said:
****in' Franken. I wanted you to be president. The additional accounts, which were told to a reporter years ago after the incident happened, are convincing enough that Al enjoys playing grabass.

I like the part where Franken says "I can categorically say that I did not proposition anyone to join me in any bathroom." This reminds me of an anecdote he included in one of his books, maybe Lying Liars Who Lie. In the 70s he co-wrote an SNL sketch about President Carter growing into a giant and visiting devastation upon the city. A reporter asks the White House Press Secretary, "Is it true Carter is over a hundred feet tall?" The reporter issues a strong denial? "Over a hundred feet tall -- that's ridiculous. That's absolutely false." Another reporter cocks his head, "Is he over... 90 feet tall?" The Press Secretary says, "I'm through answering questions."
Click to expand...

Hmm yeah, he's definitely leaving open the possibility of the occasional buttock-clutch there.

That said, I think we have to consider Obama an outlier. Generally speaking, assgrabbery would appear to be fairly presidential behaviour.
 
Argumemnon said:
That's generally why we ask questions. If you had said it, I wouldn't need to ask. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
[

But your question only makes any kind of sense if you did think I had said that "I believe....". It was at best a rhetorical question. You made an assumption about why I had posted something and without trying to check your assumption you ran with it.

Argumemnon said:
I did. That's my question. Stop stalling.
Click to expand...

Only after going around the houses, rather than all this palaver you could have just asked right at the start:

"What's the relevance to that in regards to my statement?"

Instead you made several assumptions and jumped to conclusions not supported by anything I had actually posted.

Onto my reason for making my comment. Times change, what is accepted and what isn't can change radically in a very short time, in the UK it is only since 1992 that a husband can be prosecuted for raping his wife, prior to that consent was implied by the act of marriage.

What is meant by "implicit consent" can change, and I think it is changing rapidly now and I am wary of how it is changing and am concerned that the law of unforeseen consequences may rear its ugly head and we end up with something that doesn't protect people so much as it attempts to totally desexualise interactions between people. Which I think is wrong. I think implicit consent does exist in many situations, and in scenarios that have been raised here. That people make mistakes is not a reason to say that implied consent is always a fallacy. The example I used (I think in this thread) is that in a nightclub when two of you have been dancing with much physical contact and one leans in to give the other a kiss - I don't think it is wrong to say there is "implied consent" but of course if the other person says "no" or just pulls away then to repeatedly try to kiss them would be wrong.


Argumemnon said:
Do you regret bringing up the rape analogy now that it's been shown to be foolish?
Click to expand...

Who brought up a rape analogy? I certainly didn't.
 
Darat said:
But your question only makes any kind of sense if you did think I had said that "I believe....". It was at best a rhetorical question. You made an assumption about why I had posted something and without trying to check your assumption you ran with it.
Click to expand...

No, no no. You don't get to assign a meaning of your own concoction to my post. It wasn't an assumption or a rhetorical question. I suspect that you know this but have noticed yourself that your rape analogy was nonsense and don't want your answers to lead to that obvious conclusion.

Only after going around the houses, rather than all this palaver you could have just asked right at the start:

"What's the relevance to that in regards to my statement?"
Click to expand...

The only one playing a game is you, with your reluctance to answer my points and questions with this pretense of precision. I made my meaning clear at all steps. That you keep adding content and meaning that isn't there isn't my problem.

Onto my reason for making my comment. Times change, what is accepted and what isn't can change radically in a very short time, in the UK it is only since 1992 that a husband can be prosecuted for raping his wife, prior to that consent was implied by the act of marriage.
Click to expand...

Sure, things change. That still doesn't address my point about kissing your wife.

Who brought up a rape analogy? I certainly didn't.
Click to expand...

Then what's this:

Darat said:
That was part of the reasoning for many of the laws in various countries that said a husband couldn't rape his wife because by marrying there was implicit consent.
Click to expand...

You brought it up, and it was about rape.
 
The Big Dog said:
Irony meter explodes gif here

My posts have been absolutely correct from the first through and including this one.

That being said, slut shaming and Russian troll conspiracy theories deserve more derision not less.
Click to expand...

Actually, they would deserve an argument. If you think they're not worth your time, you're spending a lot of it on them. Of course, we all know why.
 
Toontown said:
I believe Trump is a pussy grabber who is otherwise unfit for the office of the presidency. I believe Al Franken badgered Tweeden into agreeing to rehearse a kiss with the full intention of deploying tongue, probably because his twisted comedian mentality thought that would be funny. I believe Roy Moore is too stupid to be sent to Washington.

I believe all the above because the perps said so and/or compelling evidence exists.

The obvious solutions: lame-duck Trump in 2018 and send him packing in 2020. Make Franken the object of an ethics investigation and live with the outcome. Don't elect Moore.

But these solutions are too obvious and too sane, so the Franken probe is likely to be the only one that will be implemented.
Click to expand...

A lame duck is a second-term president (because he cannot be re-elected).

It is not a president whose Congress is controlled by the other party, which is what I assume you meant by referring to 2018.
 
Darat said:
[

But your question only makes any kind of sense if you did think I had said that "I believe....". It was at best a rhetorical question. You made an assumption about why I had posted something and without trying to check your assumption you ran with it.



Only after going around the houses, rather than all this palaver you could have just asked right at the start:

"What's the relevance to that in regards to my statement?"

Instead you made several assumptions and jumped to conclusions not supported by anything I had actually posted.

Onto my reason for making my comment. Times change, what is accepted and what isn't can change radically in a very short time, in the UK it is only since 1992 that a husband can be prosecuted for raping his wife, prior to that consent was implied by the act of marriage.

What is meant by "implicit consent" can change, and I think it is changing rapidly now and I am wary of how it is changing and am concerned that the law of unforeseen consequences may rear its ugly head and we end up with something that doesn't protect people so much as it attempts to totally desexualise interactions between people. Which I think is wrong. I think implicit consent does exist in many situations, and in scenarios that have been raised here. That people make mistakes is not a reason to say that implied consent is always a fallacy. The example I used (I think in this thread) is that in a nightclub when two of you have been dancing with much physical contact and one leans in to give the other a kiss - I don't think it is wrong to say there is "implied consent" but of course if the other person says "no" or just pulls away then to repeatedly try to kiss them would be wrong.




Who brought up a rape analogy? I certainly didn't.
Click to expand...

Answering the question would have required a single post, rather than this long derail about how it shouldn't have been asked.
 
phiwum said:
A lame duck is a second-term president (because he cannot be re-elected).

It is not a president whose Congress is controlled by the other party, which is what I assume you meant by referring to 2018.
Click to expand...
Though given his monumental failure to achieve anything legeslative (I know his judicial picks are worrying and his use of executive orders hypucritical and damaging) he is at the very least a duck that can't swim and only avoids drowning because his swollen head due to narcissim acts like a swim float.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom