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

[The Big Dog]

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.)

Did you cup the ass like Frankengroper did three separate times that we know of?

 

[varwoche]

Did you cup the ass like Frankengroper did three separate times that we know of?

(1) No, and hopefully the perceptions of the two women are in alignment. (2) too strongly worded.

The criteria I (informally) use to weigh allegations includes... How old is the incident? Is there contemporaneous corroboration? Is the accuser anonymous? Does the accuser have an axe to grind? (Not knowable when the accuser is anonymous.) Does the accused have a track record?

The anonymity of one (or two?) of the accusers is a factor in my assessing your certitude as exaggeration. The infantile, Trump-like name calling doesn't help, but I digress.

 

[The Big Dog]

Frankengroper releases his third non-apology apology

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/al-franken-apologizes-to-women-who-said-he-groped-them

I’ve learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many. Some women have found my greetings or embraces for a hug or photo inappropriate, and I respect their feelings about that.

The sad thing is that this is not one of funny man's funny comments.

It is "some" women's fault that they don't understand that Frankengroper is a hugger!

I wonder if Russian Trolls hacked into his email and wrote that *********** dumpster fire of an "apology."

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

When I notice that a majority of a poster's posts are not arguing about the topic, but instead arguing about how other posters are arguing, I just go ahead and ignore that poster.

 

[The Big Dog]

When I notice that a majority of a poster's posts are not arguing about the topic, but instead arguing about how other posters are arguing, I just go ahead and ignore that poster.

Amen, but One gets used to it.

Really common when threads start going badly for Democrats, like this one.

 

[Belz...]

When I notice that a majority of a poster's posts are not arguing about the topic, but instead arguing about how other posters are arguing, I just go ahead and ignore that poster.

My questions to Darat are specifically on topic.

 

[Toontown]

When I notice that a majority of a poster's posts are not arguing about the topic, but instead arguing about how other posters are arguing, I just go ahead and ignore that poster.

Amen, but One gets used to it.

Really common when threads start going badly for Democrats, like this one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Assuming you meant special pleading:

Special Pleading fallacy

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2] ...

In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.[3]

If you meant something else, by all means explain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.)

OMG T, 50 Hail Marys and extra Communion for you.

 

[beren]

Assuming you meant special pleading:

Special Pleading fallacy

If you meant something else, by all means explain.

If I had meant special pleading, I would have said that.
I said and meant special knowledge. But of you course, you know better than me what I meant.
You assume I meant something other than I said because you "know" better than me, right?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

Assuming you meant special pleading:

Special Pleading fallacy

If you meant something else, by all means explain.

He's probably referring to an appeal to authority.

Your argument appears to be of the form:

I know a lot more about Franken than others. (I'm an authority)
I also know a lot more about sexual harassment than others. (I'm an authority)
Therefore, I know that Franken cannot have been guilty of sexual harassment. (Trust me, I'm an authority)

Even if the premises are true the conclusion can still be false.

This is why I have asked you what you would need to see, regardless of your superior knowledge about Franken and sexual harassment, that would persuade you when it comes to accusations about Franken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I had meant special pleading, I would have said that.
I said and meant special knowledge. But of you course, you know better than me what I meant.
You assume I meant something other than I said because you "know" better than me, right?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Please explain the difference between someone who is knowledgeable because they have spent time acquiring information about a topic and "special knowledge" as you are referring to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's probably referring to an appeal to authority.

Your argument appears to be of the form:

I know a lot more about Franken than others. (I'm an authority)
I also know a lot more about sexual harassment than others. (I'm an authority)
Therefore, I know that Franken cannot have been guilty of sexual harassment. (Trust me, I'm an authority)

Even if the premises are true the conclusion can still be false.

This is why I have asked you what you would need to see, regardless of your superior knowledge about Franken and sexual harassment, that would persuade you when it comes to accusations about Franken.

Staw man much?

Appeal to authority

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept.

I made no such unsupported claim. I explained what evidence I was basing my conclusion on.

You all don't have to take my word for it. I don't care. But don't tell me I'm pulling the conclusion out of thin air because I described what I know about Franken and it's quite extensive.

Now whether you have extensive knowledge about Franken or not is your business. I have not seen anything presented except the most superficial reading of the news events.

As for my knowledge of sexual harassment and abuse, I'm pretty sure I do have more extensive knowledge of the subject than you if your posts are any representation of your knowledge. Again, I have not seen anything presented except the most superficial reading of the news events.

Nurses and family practitioners often have extensive knowledge of sexual harassment and abuse. And as an occupational health provider I have some professional knowledge of harassment in the workplace. Then there is the fact I've been around the block and have some first hand experience.


Now, again, I don't care or expect you to take my word for it. But I described the evidence I was basing my conclusion on. That is not an appeal to authority, not special pleading and not a description of "special knowledge", just regular ol' read-extensively-and-have-had-some-experience knowledge.

 

[Oystein]

Ginger, what kind of, or what amount of evidence would it require to convince you that Franken sometimes feels up women more than is appropriate?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Ginger, what kind of, or what amount of evidence would it require to convince you that Franken sometimes feels up women more than is appropriate?

It would help to define “feels up,” or agree on a more precise term.

 

[The Big Dog]

Please explain the difference between someone who is knowledgeable because they have spent time acquiring information about a topic and "special knowledge" as you are referring to it.

Well one person claims that Russian trolls made Frankengroper do it, and everyone else has special knowledge.

 

[The Big Dog]

Franken has never denied groping women

Al Franken still hasn’t denied grabbing women:

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has waded into the murky waters of trying to apologize for inappropriately touching women — while asserting that he didn't intentionally do anything wrong. And yet Franken hasn't denied any of the accusations against him, leaving the door open to the possibility that he is a serial groper.

as noted in the article, the russian trollswomen have made it absolutely clear what he did to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...denied-grabbing-women/?utm_term=.2147ef9b0117

 

[applecorped]

He was joking, it's all good.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm just glad TBD can take time out of his busy Hillary obsession to find a new target

 

[angrysoba]

Al Franken still hasn’t denied grabbing women:



as noted in the article, the russian trollswomen have made it absolutely clear what he did to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...denied-grabbing-women/?utm_term=.2147ef9b0117

The Big Dog, I agree, and have noticed myself that what Franken has failed to do is deny the specific charges. Except one, that he "propositioned" a woman to go to the bathroom together. As Cain has pointed out, this is a little bit suspicious that he can categorically deny one thing and yet only make vague seeming denials that are based mostly on how he doesn't exactly remember things. This is not very reassuring.

If he were to say he certainly has not grabbed women's buttocks intentionally, then his denial would be more persuasive. And he also has not denied groping Tweeden. Those who are referring to it merely as a grope joke or saying there is no evidence that he grabbed her boob have been assuming that all we can see in the photograph is all that happened. It is a little bit reminiscent of Dawkins's joke about how Creationists deny evolution because of "gaps in the fossil record". Dawkins suggests that if we saw a photograph of a man leaving the scene of a crime, the Creationist argument would be that this is evidence that the man didn't commit the crime because of the gap. It's poor reasoning, in other words.

I think Franken's own failure to use the arguments that others have provided here and his own failure to flatly deny groping of any kind leads to the suspicion that he did. Maybe he didn't, but it doesn't look good right now.

Now, I think a similar situation exists with Roy Moore. The far more serious allegations against him and his inability to explain himself or offer any kind of unambiguous denials suggests to me that he should be in serious legal trouble. Would you not agree that the partisan support of Franken is unacceptable here and even more unacceptable when it comes to Moore? What do you have to say about Moore?