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

[Skeptic Ginger]

I take it that you simply do not believe the stories of him squeezing butts or other forms of groping if your knowledge of him and that of the SNL cast is being used to show it is out of character.

I take it you ignored all the evidence I've presented in the thread and instead hand waved it away like I predicted with something akin to, "I'm just going by some quick assessment or the fact Franken is a Democrat."

What evidence would you need for you to believe the accusations that he groped breasts or butts given that you are apparently dismissing multiple claims?

Turn that around, why is it you are ignoring the mountain of evidence Franken is not a serial sexual abuser and instead going with incredibly weak evidence he might be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not that my opinion makes one bit of difference, but I'm with Skeptic Ginger here. This has turned into an absolute witch hunt and it's ridiculous.

None of us know for sure what happened. I could see a situation where people are coming up to him asking for pictures, him going to put his arm around someone, and accidentally putting it a little too low. Maybe he left it there for a second or two before he moved it or maybe he didn't move it at all. Either way boo *********** who. That is if it even happened at all.

I'm just waiting on the wrong person to get accused of something. Maybe that person will speak up and say enough is enough and more people will join with them in stopping this nonsense.

Thank you.

I don't want to stop the movement, but people need to keep perspective in mind. Every accusation is not equal.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not that my opinion makes one bit of difference, but I'm with Skeptic Ginger here. This has turned into an absolute witch hunt and it's ridiculous.

None of us know for sure what happened. I could see a situation where people are coming up to him asking for pictures, him going to put his arm around someone, and accidentally putting it a little too low. Maybe he left it there for a second or two before he moved it or maybe he didn't move it at all. Either way boo *********** who. That is if it even happened at all.

I'm just waiting on the wrong person to get accused of something. Maybe that person will speak up and say enough is enough and more people will join with them in stopping this nonsense.

Well there are four women at least that do and the fact that you and SG don’t believe them and think it is ridiculous is both not surprising and totally worthless.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, you are right because you have special knowledge that no one may question.

On the other hand, evidence.

You need to look up the definition of special knowledge. A thorough understanding of an issue is not the definition of special knowledge.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, I love the whole thread. I was going to compare the partisan pearl clutching to the comments made by outraged, outraged I say, conservatives in the Judge Roy, Trump Pussy Grabber, Bush Senior Ass-grabbing, State Congressman Boytoy-in-the-office .... threads.

But guess what? Much to my chagrin, but no one's surprise, there's no such concern for the victims or even sense of aprobation by you folks in those threads. It's, golly, almost like you're avoiding those issues and wait until you find a nice fat Democratic target. That couldn't be, could it? Surely a form Bernie Sanders supporter would be quick to show off the double-dealing corruption and felonious acts of members of BOTH parties.

So far, all we've got is a sitcom sub-plot - Men Behaving Badly. We have a Senate candidate cruising for high school nookie and molesting underage girls, we have a president who admits that he forced himself and his attentions on women and girls without approval, and a couple of Bennie Hill comedy sketches - - - Bush Sr and Al Franken.

As Sistah whatever her name is said, "Honey, men are dawgs!" Censure? A slap on the wrists? For ass-grabbing. Maybe we could get Bush Sr. onto the sexual predators website to warn people off? I can see the Trump enablers getting behind that?

Yeah, watching conservatives and MRA supporters go through all these politically correct motions is quite entertaining.

So your favorite part of this thread is a bunch of posts in other threads?

Yeah those are pretty good... but, c’mon, Russian trolls sending a bunch of women to get groped by Frankengrope? Solid gold money!

 

[Foolmewunz]

So your favorite part of this thread is a bunch of posts in other threads?

Yeah those are pretty good... but, c’mon, Russian trolls sending a bunch of women to get groped by Frankengrope? Solid gold money!

No, my favorite part of the thread is that it is evidence that you (for certain values of that word) only care about these things if it's a Democrat/Liberal you've got on the griddle.

Perhaps you could disabuse us of that notion? Just show us all the posts you made in the Dubya Daddy Groped A Gal thread. There must be many of them. Or were your pearls out for cleaning that week.

Or the many posts condemning Roy Moore and saying that he should stand down as he's not fit for office.

How about the many posts deeply concerned about DJT abusing women? I mean, as a Bernie Sanders supporter, you must've just about blown a cork over that series of accusations and denials.

Otherwise? People might just wonder how sincere your concern is.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for breach of rule 12

 

[angrysoba]

I take it you ignored all the evidence I've presented in the thread and instead hand waved it away like I predicted with something akin to, "I'm just going by some quick assessment or the fact Franken is a Democrat."

I don't see any evidence at all. I only see a rationalization for why you don't believe the accusations. You can dress it up all you want with as much verbiage and character witness statements, but ultimately, you are merely dismissing the accusations.

Turn that around, why is it you are ignoring the mountain of evidence Franken is not a serial sexual abuser and instead going with incredibly weak evidence he might be?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

To repeat, What evidence would you need for you to believe the accusations that he groped breasts or butts given that you are apparently dismissing multiple claims?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see any evidence at all. I only see a rationalization for why you don't believe the accusations. You can dress it up all you want with as much verbiage and character witness statements, but ultimately, you are merely dismissing the accusations.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

To repeat, What evidence would you need for you to believe the accusations that he groped breasts or butts given that you are apparently dismissing multiple claims?

Eye of the beholder I guess. I don't know how my repeating what I've posted over and over in this thread is going to make any difference.

I suggest you ask yourself why you are jumping on the bandwagon with every accusation and not considering some accusations may indeed be bull ****** Maybe focus on the ones where overwhelming evidence supports the accusation and put this iffy accusation on hold for a while, see how it sorts itself out.

Why are you so willing to accept Franken is one of them? The evidence is damn weak here. Is that how we conclude guilt?

 

[beren]

You need to look up the definition of special knowledge. A thorough understanding of an issue is not the definition of special knowledge.

I was unaware that special knowledge had its own specific definition beyond the bare denotation if the two words.

Where could I look this up? My dictionary of choice has no definition for this term.

 

[angrysoba]

Eye of the beholder I guess. I don't know how my repeating what I've posted over and over in this thread is going to make any difference.

I suggest you ask yourself why you are jumping on the bandwagon with every accusation and not considering some accusations may indeed be bull ****** Maybe focus on the ones where overwhelming evidence supports the accusation and put this iffy accusation on hold for a while, see how it sorts itself out.

Why are you so willing to accept Franken is one of them? The evidence is damn weak here. Is that how we conclude guilt?

I don't dispute that some accusations may be bull **************. I dispute the idea that all accusations MUST be bull *********** which is what your rationalization implies. But please note that I have not assumed that the accusations MUST be true. I have said that the accusations warrant investigation and that the Democrats ought to clarify what action they will take if the accusations turn out to be well-founded.

So again, what evidence would you need for you to believe the accusations that he groped breasts or butts given that you are apparently dismissing multiple claims?

 

[quadraginta]

Looks like your definition is #2 and mine #3 on Merriam Webster, so yours is probably the older definition. Nowadays, I hear newscasters and talking heads use the third definition usually.

Your definition was popularized to excuse a GOP Senate stonewalling Obama judicial nominations.

 

[Belz...]

Which question are you talking about?

Argumemnon asked, "Do you really believe that I have to ask my wife's permission to kiss her every time?"

How about you answer the question? What are you afraid of?

Answer what question?

Of all the childish games you seem to have become so fond of playing, you've just outdone yourself.

And a bit of advice to you, if you want a discussion with someone don't make up things and attribute them to the person, it's much better to simply address what they actually said or posted.

After I explained to you how you were wrong for claiming that I had done that in the first place, that you insist that I did now is simply dishonest.

 

[Octavo]

There comes a point where one can no longer give a poster the benefit of the doubt and has to assume they are simply trolling.

 

[phiwum]

Your definition was popularized to excuse a GOP Senate stonewalling Obama judicial nominations.

No, it wasn't. The usage predates the last year of Obama by several presidencies.

That Obama was a lame duck would not even approach an excuse for the GOP action. Your claim is just pulled out of thin air.

 

[Darat]

There comes a point where one can no longer give a poster the benefit of the doubt and has to assume they are simply trolling.

He would seem to be wanting to post insults rather than engage in any actual discussion about what I have posted but I don't think Argumemnon is trolling, I just think he didn't actually bother reading my posts after he jumped straight into assumption creek. I'll requote one of the relevant parts of one of my posts:

"...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.

...snip.."

 

[Belz...]

He would seem to be wanting to post insults rather than engage in any actual discussion about what I have posted but I don't think Argumemnon is trolling

Is there no ends to the games you play? I'm the one who tried to get a discussion going by asking you a simple, clear question. You attempted to deflect that discussion by pretending that I had "assumed" something, and continued to claim so after you were corrected, all the while asking "what question?" as if you forgot the question you were ranting about. And now that you've been called on your trolling, by three posters, you play the "I know you are but what am I?" card?

Pathetic.

 

[Darat]

Lets see, I post:

He would seem to be wanting to post insults rather than engage in any actual discussion about what I have posted but I don't think Argumemnon is trolling, I just think he didn't actually bother reading my posts after he jumped straight into assumption creek. I'll requote one of the relevant parts of one of my posts:

"...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.

...snip.."

And the person who claims to be wanting a discussion about the topic of the thread and accuses me of playing games ignores the entire part in italics and responds with:

Is there no ends to the games you play? I'm the one who tried to get a discussion going by asking you a simple, clear question. You attempted to deflect that discussion by pretending that I had "assumed" something, and continued to claim so after you were corrected, all the while asking "what question?" as if you forgot the question you were ranting about. And now that you've been called on your trolling, by three posters, you play the "I know you are but what am I?" card?

Pathetic.

It really is pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

Lets see, I post:

And the person who claims to be wanting a discussion about the topic of the thread and accuses me of playing games ignores the entire part in italics and responds with:

I read it before. And none of it answers my question.


What question you say? Yeah.

I can't believe it. Despite you being called on your games you just keep going.

 

[applecorped]

It really is pathetic.

It sure is

 

[varwoche]

There are two incidents in recent history when I briefly, inadvertently touched ass. Both times it was a group photo where everyone had their arms around the people standing along side. So far as I know, these were non-events that caused no umbrage.

(One of the ladies was a drop-dead gorgeous African princess, no joke. For better and/or for worse, I get no pleasure at all from that sort of contact, just fleeting embarrassment.)