Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which pretend stands are you referring to? And please only give me ones that liberals generally say he has. I admit that you can always find a small minority saying something completely ridiculous (and that goes for both liberals and conservatives).
    I've seen a few...

    One instance was when he said they should take away Hillary's body guards. The liberal media said that was a threat on her life. In truth it was referencing the idea that her stand agaisnt guns is hypocritical when she is protected by armed bodyguards, thus she should give them up if she hates guns so much.

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This whole take on "sexual assault" is horribly biased against men. Basically a man can have an entire sexual encounter with a woman, with her participating. Then later she says "I didn't want it" and now it's sexual assault. The woman doesn't have to even say "no" in peoples eyes anymore.
    It's retroactive attack on men because they are men. It isn't just, and it isn't sexual assault.
    Yes, women can make false accusations sometimes, it happens, but grabbing women by their ***** is sexual assault. Just don't do it and you won't get in trouble. Its as simple as that. Men are not entitled to sed or to grab women any more than I am entitled to pick your nose because I think you need a good nose picking. "honest he was just begging to have his nose picked, look at all the boogers in there!"

    Keep your hands to yourself unless you are invited to do some touching.

    Which brings us to what trump "admitted" to. That is.. that woman don't care. IE they are inviting it.
    That is not sexual assault, that is what you get when you hang out with whores.
    No, that is his ******** assumption, that because he's famous and such that they want him grabbing them. He may beleive that, but it's not always true. And since it isn't always true you shouldn't be doing it. THose that want it, well you are fine. Those that don't, you are sexually assaulting them. Some guys might like getting into fights, but that doesn't mean I am justified in going around punching all the guys I meet. Some guys might like it if I grapped their ****, I bet you wouldn't. Get it?

    Clearly we know that women he has done this to did not want it or invite it but got it anyways.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you just start kissing someone, then you don't know if they desire a kiss beforehand. So the kissing is not consensual.
    Not necessarily. That is the point.
    The idea that one must expressly ask to kiss someone, is simply not how our general social structure works.
    Same with hugs. There is so much that goes unspoken that the expectation of expressed permission is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You have not pointed out any flaw in my logic. This statement doesn't amount to anything more than "you may be wrong" and does not address my logic which is:

    "But when HE says "I do this to women" and a bunch of women say "He did that to me", I think the claim that he did that to some women is not a baseless claim. There is definitely a valid reason to think he likely did at least some of the things he's accused of."
    your ascribing to the logic that the media has used, which has equated his action to sexual assault.

    That is where your logic fails, and I have shown why.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Let me put it this way. If there was an actual rape case on trial, the alleged victim of the crime definitely counts as a witness. So accusers of a crime are indeed witnesses to that crime. So accusers are witnesses.
    My point is that we have accusers, but no other witness to those accusations. Also they are generally unrelated events.
    IE supposing one rape did occure, that does not add a "witness" so some other rape event.

    I don't deny the accusers, and if you equate them with a witness that is fine. But we don't have "witnesses" plural to a given event.
    The ones we do, are not crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You've lost me with your analogy.
    The analogy is about the nature of "baseless" claim and how it relates to Trump and his accusers.

    You have said that because he has admitted to kissing woman, and grabbing them by the vagina. That this makes the specific claims of such an event "not baseless".
    So that Girl X, has a basis for her claim, because of what trump said.

    My objection is that the two are not logically linked, and thus can not be a valid base for the claim.
    you objected to the likely hood of the event as an objection, but that isn't a valid objection.
    A base for a claim is logical support, proof and evidence. (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Engaging in a double standard does not mean that one is wrong.
    ummm.. having two opposing standards, does mean one is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I think Trump is a creep and the reporter is not, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong about Trump being a creep even if for some reason I don't think the reporter is. And if you want to call me a hypocrite, go ahead. But then me being a hypocrite likewise doesn't make my argument regarding Trump wrong either (to dismiss my argument over a personal characteristic of myself, such as hypocrisy, is to engage in the ad hominem fallacy)
    Not at all. your making a personal judgment in your assesment of "creep". By holding a double standard, you make yourself an unreasonable measure and thus your opinion can and should be dismissed.

    So as long as your argument relies on your personal character and personal ability to recognize creeps. Then your personal character is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I think Trump is a creep and the reporter is not, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong about Trump being a creep even if for some reason I don't think the reporter is. And if you want to call me a hypocrite, go ahead. But then me being a hypocrite likewise doesn't make my argument regarding Trump wrong either (to dismiss my argument over a personal characteristic of myself, such as hypocrisy, is to engage in the ad hominem fallacy)
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that he was asked that in a debate.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...-lewd-comments
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rtment-agrees/

    Repeatedly said that donalds words were sexual assault, and repeatedly asked if he had ever done it "for the record" and repeatedly implied that unless he denied it, then he was admitting to sexual assault.
    So, he was accused by the media in a debate on a specific charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because you say so? You will need to support this with something other than your opinion.
    So your saying that their non action at the time, is not evidence that his actions were socially acceptable at the time?
    Exactly what would be evidence that his actions were socially acceptable, if not that the society there (3 ladies) accepted it without complaint when it occured?

    I don't think I offered my opinion, but I'm making an observation based on their testimony.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I guess you don't understand. A hug has to have some sexual component to it before it can considered sexual anything, let alone sexual assault.

    So again, not every hug counts as one. But the hugs that Trump allegedly gave do.
    I already challenged you to support this. Repeating the claim does nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Sorry. I don't understand what you are saying.
    You said
    "A big issue is whether the activity is done in a sexual manner. Is the person doing it for immediate sexual gratification or as a means to gain more sexual activity in the future (as in the kissing is intended as foreplay in the hope of it leading to sexual intercourse in the future). So giving someone a friendly hug definitely would not qualify."

    I challenged you to support that distinction, and how it applies to Donald.

    You have said Donalds hugs qualify as sexual assault, but hugs in general don't. You need to support that distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not a distortion because it was a direct quote from the women. They said "grabbed".
    yes, "Grabbed in a hug". That is the phrase. He didn't walk up and "grab them" he "grabbed them in a hug".
    that communicates two very different things. The latter means he hugged them. Which is a form of grabbing. however calling it "grabbing" is really just an inflamitory description without any other detail.
    As I said, did he grabb their ass while he hugged them? No, it appears to be refering to the hug and not any other secondary act.

    So it's inflamitory and twisted description of events.

    That is like me saying "you struck me in a high five".

    My objection is that the description is being forwarded as evidence of sexual assault, when it in no way implies that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then I guess you won't mind if some guy comes up and starts kissing and hugging the women in your life without their consent. I think most people would mind.
    If I don't say something at the time. yes you are correct to draw that conclusion.
    If I walk into your house and great each of your friends with a hug and kiss, and you say nothing.
    you have accepted my behavior as socially acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then I guess you won't mind if some guy comes up and starts kissing and hugging the women in your life without their consent. I think most people would mind.
    That is equally ridiculous. See slowly undressing and implementing sexual intercourse.
    You do have a responsibility to communicate a "no" or else at some point your non action becomes implied consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    She can say she was raped if she didn't consent to the sexual activity. What if she was threatened with violence so she didn't resist and therefore didn't consent. What if she was unconscious? And all of these scenarios fit your what you have have forwarded for I don't see you mentioning consent in your scenario.
    Threat of force or violence or something else preventing speaking is clearly not a part of what I am describing. Those are added factors that are relevant to consent.
    They are not present or an issue in my example, and as such you are not addressing it. Your creating straw men.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    How is it not obvious that sexual gratification is relevant to committing sexual assault? Why do you think people do that?
    And your going to make that judgment based on a locker room discussion 20 years earlier?
    Seriously?
    Also it's not obvious, because men derive a level of sexual gratification from nearly all interactions with woman. Hence the anti-man nature of these accusations.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Nope. If someone is on trial for rape and the only person who testifies against the perp is the victim, the victim is definitely considered a witness. Either way, you are just playing semantic games. Use whatever term you want - there are people who have witnessed the activities and their claims are relevant.
    There are not multile witnesses to the single events. I am not playing semantics, I'm adding clarity. I clearly accept an accuser as an "eye witness".
    However the way you are communicating it is to imply that there were multiple witnesses to a given event. And that is not true.
    That is my only point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Society is not drawing a line here. I AM. So let me repeat my statement (and this is coming just from me) and if you disagree with me, please tell me why or I will assume that you don't disagree.
    Your arbitrary moral outrage is noted. I disagree with it's validity or relvance to the other claims.
    Your personal opinion of Donald is not proof of a crime, nore does it effect the likelyhood of any given event. Your opinion is not relevant to the occurance of a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Which completely side-steps the pertinent issue, which is Trump's behavior.
    You mean aledged behavior right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only reason that you should be blasť about Trump's activities is if you don't actually care.
    What am I supposed to care about again? Men around models as they dress? amd I to be outraged by that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you don't care that he has walked into women's changing rooms so he can get an eyeful of undressed women, then I guess you have a much higher tolerance for this guy being a total creep than others. If you do care though and think that this shows that he's a creep, then you should honestly concede that point.
    What point? and in support of what?
    My concern and argument is in regards to sexual assault charges, and the illegality of any of his actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What everyone else thinks about that and issues that you think are similar (and btw, I don't agree that they are similar in any relevant way) is completely irrelevant to whether Trump is being a creep and shifting the focus to that is really dodging the issue that I'm raising regarding his walking into changing rooms
    My objection is societies cherry picking nature of outrage. If you think a man walking in on changing woman is horrible and outragious, but you are not equally outraged by mens locker rooms being invaded by woman and cameras.
    I'm sorry, I simply don't care about your opinion on the matter.
    In a larger sense. society has shown itself to be completly fine with both actions. Our society simply does not hold female nudty to be sacred, and I'm not going to listen to cherry picked, double standard of society to inform me as to what I should be outraged by.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm sorry but on what planet is giving someone a platonic (non-sexual) hug considered "sexual assault"? It's clearly not. I think you are the one who is playing around with definitions and trying to make something that is not necessarily sexual "sexual" in order to forward that the ramifications of my argument leads us somewhere ridiculous. I NEVER defined "sexual assault" as any and all hugs so if you want to argue that all non-consensual hugs are indeed sexual assault, the burden is yours. If you don't think that, then we actually agree that platonic hugs cannot reasonably be considered sexual assault.
    your inserting "sexual" and "Nonsexual" without qualifiers, description or explination.
    One hug is called sexual (the ones donald is accused of) and other are not with out any tangable differance.
    Instead the vague "for sexual gratification" is thrown in, but that has to do with a persons state of mind, and there isn't any way to tell what is in someones mind.

    My problem is that your not able to say what hug is and is not sexual in nature. So I am forced to dismiss any claim that a hug is sexual assault.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, if a guy hugs a girl that he's attracted to without her consent, it could be considered sexual assault.
    Look at the reply you put just ..like 5 lines ago.
    Dude there is no distinction!!
    Your arbitarily daigning one to be sexual assault and the other not based on what you think someone else is thinking!? Frick man, that's ridiculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I'm not arguing legally (as in the guy can be prosecuted) but if he grabs/hugs/kisses the girl without her consent for his own sexual gratification or as an attempt to seduce, I wouldn't blame her for thinking it is sexual assault.
    I don't care what people think.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I said, I've never hugged anyone without their consent and would feel pretty creepy if I ever did hug a woman I was sexually attracted to without her consent as either an attempt to "get something started" or just for the thrill of it. It's just not right.
    I'm pretty sure your incorrect. Your claim is not believable to think you have asked for expressed consent in every hug.
    Dude, I have been hugged by people I didn't want to. Your the one person who has never been hugged without your expressed consent?

    Also, forget all this "body languge" defense angle. Trump is being held to the standrd of out right expressly asking. So unless the words have come out of your mouth "can I hug you?"
    You have not recieved consent for that hug(according to the argument against trump).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    When you want to hug someone, you open your arms and hope they respond in kind. When you want to kiss someone, you lean in and hope they do the same (or just ask to kiss them) - you don't just start kissing them.
    Over simplification and in no way an accurate description of the majority of social interactions where hugging occurs.

    The standard and measure your offering is wrong, arbirary and ridiculouse. It certainly doesn't describe anything I have experanced in life. For starters, I have been hugged by my wife without my consent and against my wishes. Which would make her guilty of sexual assault by your definition.
    That is simply ridiculous an unreasonable. I would say that I have regularly been engaged in huggs that were unwelcome and were not specifically and orally asked for.
    Your simply not describing reality.

    Seriously.. seriously. The measure you are apply makes everyone guilty of sexual assault (especially men). Your deceiving yourself if you thin you would not be held guilty as well.

    ----------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes, women can make false accusations sometimes, it happens, but grabbing women by their ***** is sexual assault. Just don't do it and you won't get in trouble. Its as simple as that. Men are not entitled to sed or to grab women any more than I am entitled to pick your nose because I think you need a good nose picking. "honest he was just begging to have his nose picked, look at all the boogers in there!"

    Keep your hands to yourself unless you are invited to do some touching.
    over simplification, and really not something that has occured or is even being accused of him. Especially not in the manner that he described in his locker room discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, that is his ******** assumption, that because he's famous and such that they want him grabbing them. He may beleive that, but it's not always true. And since it isn't always true you shouldn't be doing it. THose that want it, well you are fine. Those that don't, you are sexually assaulting them. Some guys might like getting into fights, but that doesn't mean I am justified in going around punching all the guys I meet. Some guys might like it if I grapped their ****, I bet you wouldn't. Get it?
    nope

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Clearly we know that women he has done this to did not want it or invite it but got it anyways.
    No, we don't know that. That is speculation and hearsay.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not necessarily. That is the point.
    The idea that one must expressly ask to kiss someone, is simply not how our general social structure works.
    Same with hugs. There is so much that goes unspoken that the expectation of expressed permission is ridiculous.
    Straw man argument. I never said that one must ask to give a hug or a kiss before it can be considered consensual. As I said regarding hugs, I open my arms and see if the person I want to hug does likewise or leans in. IF they do, they consent and I hug them. If they don’t, then I know they don’t want a hug and I lower my arms.

    But if I go up and hug or kiss someone without first attempting to find out if they consent to a hug, then the hug is not consensual. And Trump clearly said that he just starts kissing women which means that he's not bothering to check if they consent to a kiss. So the kissing is typically non-consensual.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    someour ascribing to the logic that the media has used, which has equated his action to sexual assault.

    That is where your logic fails, and I have shown why.
    Not to my knowledge so your claim that my logic fails is invalid for a lack of support. You will need to show where the flaw in my logic lies to support that its flawed. So I will again restate my argument and it stands until you make a response to it that reveals its flaw.

    “But when HE says "I do this to women" and a bunch of women say "He did that to me", I think the claim that he did that to some women is not a baseless claim. There is definitely a valid reason to think he likely did at least some of the things he's accused of.”



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that we have accusers, but no other witness to those accusations. Also they are generally unrelated events.
    IE supposing one rape did occure, that does not add a "witness" so some other rape event.

    I don't deny the accusers, and if you equate them with a witness that is fine. But we don't have "witnesses" plural to a given event.
    The ones we do, are not crimes.
    Again, I am making no argument for criminal charges or prosecution so forget “crime”. I am talking about Trump’s alleged actions which does qualify as sexual assault. He said he performed such actions and some women said that he performed such actions with them. Those women are witnesses to his behavior. Being the subject of someone’s behavior does not mean that you are not a witness to it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have said that because he has admitted to kissing woman, and grabbing them by the vagina. That this makes the specific claims of such an event "not baseless".
    So that Girl X, has a basis for her claim, because of what trump said.

    My objection is that the two are not logically linked, and thus can not be a valid base for the claim.
    you objected to the likely hood of the event as an objection, but that isn't a valid objection.
    A base for a claim is logical support, proof and evidence. (correct me if I'm wrong on this).
    I don’t know about proof but both the girl’s testimony and Trump’s testimony qualify as evidence that he has done such things. They are both evidence that Trump does kiss and grope women without their consent so they are logically linked as they are evidence that supports the same conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ummm.. having two opposing standards, does mean one is wrong.
    But that doesn’t mean that either of them in particular is wrong. So that does not mean that the standard that is relevant to the debate (Trump’s alleged activity being immoral) is wrong.

    Nor have you supported that I am engaging in a double standard even if doing so was relevant to the debate.

    So maybe I should explain why I think Trump walking on those contestants is immoral. It’s voyeurism. He is intentionally walking in on undressed women, without their consent (he was not invited or expected in the dressing room) so he can get an eyeful of undressed women for his own sexual gratification. Morally, it’s not much different than being a peeping tom and looking through someone's bedroom window to watch them undress.

    Now for me to be engaging in a double-standard, I would have to not be against a different instance of voyeurism. So until you show that I do tolerate a similar kind of voyeurism, your charge of me having a double-standard is baseless. So I will, at this time, ignore all other arguments regarding the double-standard (as they are all covered by this argument and it would be redundant to respond to them).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. your making a personal judgment in your assesment of "creep". By holding a double standard, you make yourself an unreasonable measure and thus your opinion can and should be dismissed.

    So as long as your argument relies on your personal character and personal ability to recognize creeps. Then your personal character is relevant.
    My argument does not rely on my personal character. I am forwarding a moral position that says that walking into a dressing room in order to look at undressed women without their consent is wrong and am using the term “creep” as a term for someone who would do that. And of course any moral argument is opinion so you can reject it but then you must take the opposing position, that it’s not creepy to walk into a dressing room to look at undressed women even if they don’t want you to. Assuming you agree with me instead of oppose me on this issue, then you should concede the issue regardless of what you think of me personally.

    So do you or do you not think that someone who intentionally walks into a dressing room in order to look at undressed women is behaving immorally or not? If you don’t say no, I will assume that you do not disagree with my assessment that the person is morally wrong (a creep).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Repeatedly said that donalds words were sexual assault, and repeatedly asked if he had ever done it "for the record" and repeatedly implied that unless he denied it, then he was admitting to sexual assault.
    So, he was accused by the media in a debate on a specific charge.
    Nope. Cooper said that what described in the tape qualifies as sexual assault and then asked Trump is he actually did those things. Trump said he didn’t do those things.

    If you are going to say that Trump was specifically accused you will need to support that with a direct quote from the moderator leveling the accusation. From what I can tell, you are misinterpreting what was said.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So your saying that their non action at the time, is not evidence that his actions were socially acceptable at the time?
    Correct. People don’t always freak out and scream and raise a ruckus when inappropriate things are done so the lack of freaking out does not mean that the actions were acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Exactly what would be evidence that his actions were socially acceptable, if not that the society there (3 ladies) accepted it without complaint when it occured?
    That is a question, not an argument. If you are going to argue that his actions were socially acceptable you have the burden to make the case with an argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I already challenged you to support this. Repeating the claim does nothing.
    Fine. The word “sexual” is part of “sexual assault.” If there is no sexual component to the activity, then it does not qualify as sexual assault.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have said Donalds hugs qualify as sexual assault, but hugs in general don't. You need to support that distinction.
    I’m certainly not saying that every hug he ever gave was sexual in nature. Really, the evidence is more in the kissing. He says that he sees a beautiful woman, is attracted to her, and just starts kissing her. Obviously if he feels attracted to a woman and kisses her because of that, there’s a sexual nature to the kisses. And if he also hugs the woman in the same scenario, then the hug is likewise sexual.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    yes, "Grabbed in a hug". That is the phrase. He didn't walk up and "grab them" he "grabbed them in a hug".
    that communicates two very different things. The latter means he hugged them. Which is a form of grabbing. however calling it "grabbing" is really just an inflamitory description without any other detail.
    As I said, did he grabb their ass while he hugged them? No, it appears to be refering to the hug and not any other secondary act.

    So it's inflamitory and twisted description of events.

    That is like me saying "you struck me in a high five".

    My objection is that the description is being forwarded as evidence of sexual assault, when it in no way implies that.
    I consider that an entirely subjective interpretation on your part. The media quoted the woman directly and did not attempt to twist her words into something other than what she actually said. If you think he INTENTIONALLY used the word “grab” to misdirect, you will need to support that. IF you can’t, then the word “grab” being used says nothing in particular.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If I don't say something at the time. yes you are correct to draw that conclusion.
    Which completely dodges my question. I asked if you would be alright with a stranger hugging and kissing the women in your life without their consent and forwarded that most people would not be alright with it.

    My point being that it’s not alright to do that. Since you don’t challenge that, I will assume that you agree with me.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If I walk into your house and great each of your friends with a hug and kiss, and you say nothing.
    you have accepted my behavior as socially acceptable.
    That’s not necessarily true.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is equally ridiculous. See slowly undressing and implementing sexual intercourse.
    You do have a responsibility to communicate a "no" or else at some point your non action becomes implied consent.
    Wrong. See below.








    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Threat of force or violence or something else preventing speaking is clearly not a part of what I am describing.
    It doesn’t matter. You said that if one undresses, kisses, etc and she doesn’t say “no” then she consents. If there are situations where it’s not consent (such as the ones that I described), then your statement is not true. Not speaking up during the act of sex does NOT uniformly mean that one consents.

    Sometimes one who does not consent will not speak up so not speaking up does not equate consent.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There are not multile witnesses to the single events. I am not playing semantics, I'm adding clarity. I clearly accept an accuser as an "eye witness".
    However the way you are communicating it is to imply that there were multiple witnesses to a given event. And that is not true.
    That is my only point.
    I don’t claim that there are multiple witnesses to a single event so attributeing that to me is a straw man. I’m saying that there are multiple witnesses, over a series of different events, to the kind of behavior that Trump admitted to.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your arbitrary moral outrage is noted. I disagree with it's validity or relvance to the other claims.
    Your personal opinion of Donald is not proof of a crime, nore does it effect the likelyhood of any given event. Your opinion is not relevant to the occurance of a crime.
    As I believe I made clear, I am not arguing for legal penalties and therefore am not arguing that he did commit a crime (although I’m not conceding that he didn’t).

    And my own moral outrage is not that relevant. The issue is whether people in general should be outraged at a man intentionally violating the privacy of undressed women for his own sexual pleasure.

    I mean if you have no problem with peeping Toms and such, then I guess you don’t have a problem with Trump.

    On the other hand, if you DO have a problem with men sneaking in the bushes to spy on undressing women through their windows but don’t have a problem with Trump, then you ar the one one who is holding a double-standard.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You mean aledged behavior right?
    I thought you agreed that the dressing room incident happened.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In a larger sense. society has shown itself to be completly fine with both actions. Our society simply does not hold female nudty to be sacred, and I'm not going to listen to cherry picked, double standard of society to inform me as to what I should be outraged by.
    No one’s asking you to accept anyone else’s moral positions. If you have no problem with men spying on undressed women without their consent, then I guess that’s how you feel. So if you find some guy hiding in the bushes outside of your house, peeping in on one of the females in your household, you won’t have a problem with it?

    I have to think that you would have a BIG problem with it.

    Assuming I'm right about that, why wouldn't you have a problem with what Trump did? It's alright if it's Trump instead of that other guy? It's okay if it's not women you are personally fond of? It's okay if it's in a dressing room instead of in the bushes? This does sound like a double standard (again, assuming you would have a problem with the peeping Tom).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your inserting "sexual" and "Nonsexual" without qualifiers, description or explination.
    One hug is called sexual (the ones donald is accused of) and other are not with out any tangable differance.
    Instead the vague "for sexual gratification" is thrown in, but that has to do with a persons state of mind, and there isn't any way to tell what is in someones mind.
    Again, the issue with Trump is more about kissing. And I think In many situations, one can tell what kind of kissing is going on. And again, Trump admits to kissing women that he’s attracted to and combines his statement with a graphic sexual term so he is clearly referring to something sexual.

    My problem is that your not able to say what hug is and is not sexual in nature. So I am forced to dismiss any claim that a hug is sexual assault.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Look at the reply you put just ..like 5 lines ago.
    Dude there is no distinction!!
    Your arbitarily daigning one to be sexual assault and the other not based on what you think someone else is thinking!? Frick man, that's ridiculous.
    No it’s not. Sexual intent is very, very relevant to whether an activity is sexual or not.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm pretty sure your incorrect. Your claim is not believable to think you have asked for expressed consent in every hug.
    Dude, I have been hugged by people I didn't want to. Your the one person who has never been hugged without your expressed consent?
    I didn’t say that one has to ask for express consent. Person 1 spreads his arms for a hug and Person 2 can either step in for a hug or not. No express consent is needed. And maybe it’s just because I don’t turn down hugs or people don’t tend to wrap their arms around me if I don’t want them to, but I don’t recall ever being hugged without my consent and any claim that I am at all unusual for this is baseless.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, forget all this "body languge" defense angle. Trump is being held to the standrd of out right expressly asking. So unless the words have come out of your mouth "can I hug you?"
    You have not recieved consent for that hug(according to the argument against trump).
    Again, spreading your arms is all one needs to request a hug. You don’t need to verbally ask.

    I never held Trump to a higher standard than that nor has anyone else as far as I can tell.











    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Over simplification and in no way an accurate description of the majority of social interactions where hugging occurs.

    The standard and measure your offering is wrong, arbirary and ridiculouse. It certainly doesn't describe anything I have experanced in life. For starters, I have been hugged by my wife without my consent and against my wishes. Which would make her guilty of sexual assault by your definition.
    I would guess that in most marriages, it is assumed that the default is that one’s spouse consents to minor displays of affection at all times so consent for that can be assumed at all times. And if not, then was the hug sexual in nature?

    So maybe you can finagle a hug within a marriage to fit the definitionn of “sexual assault” but again, I am not forwarding a legal definition. Some instances can be so minor that even though the term technically applies, it’s not a big deal.

    But in the alleged activities of Trump, it is a big deal.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Seriously.. seriously. The measure you are apply makes everyone guilty of sexual assault (especially men). Your deceiving yourself if you thin you would not be held guilty as well.
    Since I have never hugged or kissed anyone without their consent, I would not be held guilty.

    It’s really no great task to not hug or kiss someone unless they are willing to have you do it.

    And besides that, you seem to be getting hung up on terms instead of focusing on the event. Maybe your wife hugging without your consent qualifies as sexual assault but if it’s not something that really bugs you (I’m guessing at worst you were kind of annoyed), it’s such a minor violation that it doesn’t matter.

    But Trump’s accusers certainly hold that he did stuff that is much more vile than that. So instead of getting hung up on a term, let’s focus on the activity in question. Did it happen? And what does it reveal about Trump?

    If it is at it appears to be (as in both Trump and his accuser’s claims are accurate), he’s a guy who goes up to women that he finds attractive and starts kissing and groping them without their consent for his own immediate sexual pleasure or in the hopes of seducing them. Regardless of whether that rises to the level of a crime (again, I’m not saying either way), it shows very poor moral character and also someone who does not have much respect for women - sees them more as sexual objects than people he should respect by seeking consent before “moving in”.

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Straw man argument. I never said that one must ask to give a hug or a kiss before it can be considered consensual.
    It is the argument being made by the women in question. "he didn't ask".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Straw man argument. I never said that one must ask to give a hug or a kiss before it can be considered consensual.
    You did not have to make it, it is the argument being made in the media. the position being attacked.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But if I go up and hug or kiss someone without first attempting to find out if they consent to a hug, then the hug is not consensual. And Trump clearly said that he just starts kissing women which means that he's not bothering to check if they consent to a kiss. So the kissing is typically non-consensual.
    And yet his actions are different. Even his video of him coming out the bus right after saying those words show him doing all that you expect. Waiting for permission.
    You act as if his private conversation is the gospel, but ignore his obvious behavior in public that is recorded.

    Fact is, you have no reason to think he does not wait for consent as you have described it (body language) as he has repeatedly on film followed those normal social cues.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Not to my knowledge so your claim that my logic fails is invalid for a lack of support. You will need to show where the flaw in my logic lies to support that its flawed. So I will again restate my argument and it stands until you make a response to it that reveals its flaw.
    I have done so already. You can read the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I am making no argument for criminal charges or prosecution so forget “crime”. I am talking about Trump’s alleged actions which does qualify as sexual assault. He said he performed such actions and some women said that he performed such actions with them. Those women are witnesses to his behavior. Being the subject of someone’s behavior does not mean that you are not a witness to it.
    I'm not aware of any such evidance.
    So your point is unsupported.

    You have not even established that he did anything without body language consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I am making no argument for criminal charges or prosecution so forget “crime”. I am talking about Trump’s alleged actions which does qualify as sexual assault. He said he performed such actions and some women said that he performed such actions with them. Those women are witnesses to his behavior. Being the subject of someone’s behavior does not mean that you are not a witness to it.
    Not at all, because his locker room talk does not substantiate the accusations. What the woman said is no less true or more true.
    Had trump in the bus said the opposit, the woman would not be made more a liar.
    So they are not made more truthful.

    I think however, are you making a more general evaluation. Like, I don't like him because he walked in on woman, spoke poorly of them in private and have several accusers.

    If that is the case, then your welcome to that and your personal opinion has some "basis".

    My objection is the truthfulness of any of the indiviaul claims is still very weak. The most substantial proof is the walking into the locker room thing. (which we agree with).
    However if your insitance is that he is guilty or likely guilty of sexual assault in a way that rises above the all too common rule that I object to. You have a long way to go to support that is a reasonable conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I am making no argument for criminal charges or prosecution so forget “crime”. I am talking about Trump’s alleged actions which does qualify as sexual assault. He said he performed such actions and some women said that he performed such actions with them. Those women are witnesses to his behavior. Being the subject of someone’s behavior does not mean that you are not a witness to it.
    See football locker room example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So do you or do you not think that someone who intentionally walks into a dressing room in order to look at undressed women is behaving immorally or not? If you don’t say no, I will assume that you do not disagree with my assessment that the person is morally wrong (a creep).
    you have made my point.
    I accept your concession that not saying "no" is acceptance otherwise called "consent" .

    ...drops mike.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    over simplification, and really not something that has occured or is even being accused of him. Especially not in the manner that he described in his locker room discussion.
    ********. Multiple people have come forward to say he kissed and fondled them agaisnt their wishes in exactly the kind of way he described in the Bush recording. It is not at all a simplification. He said he kisses and gropes women and that they let him get away with it because he is famous. Women have come forward saying he kissed and groped them and they were not ok with it but they did let him get away with it, at least until now.


    nope
    Great, so when I visit Louisiana early next year I can come by and grab your ****. Awesomesauce! I got big strong hands so get yourself ready!

    No, we don't know that. That is speculation and hearsay.
    So a guy brags that he can and has kissed and groped women univited. Then women say he kissed and groped them univited. And that is speculation? Its Hearsay? When the perp admits he does a thing, and then witnisses confirm he does a thing, that's just speculation. Dude, this is one of those moments where I have to very carefully guard my respect for you because you are working overtime to undermine it with this crap fest.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. Likes futureboy liked this post
  7. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is the argument being made by the women in question. "he didn't ask".
    But we are talking about my argument regarding the issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You did not have to make it, it is the argument being made in the media. the position being attacked.
    I don't speak for the media and the media does not speak for me. If you are addressing arguments that I did not make, it has no bearing on the validity of my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And yet his actions are different. Even his video of him coming out the bus right after saying those words show him doing all that you expect. Waiting for permission.
    You act as if his private conversation is the gospel, but ignore his obvious behavior in public that is recorded.
    I ignore it because it does not show that he doesn't do what he, and other witnesses, says he did. It's like saying that someone who is convicted of murder isn't guilty because you have evidence that he didn't kill this one person that he passed in the streets. Besides that, I Trump, or anyone for that manner, is A LOT more likely to act appropriately when he knows he's on camera than he does in private. So public behavior is not a good indicator of private behavior.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fact is, you have no reason to think he does not wait for consent as you have described it (body language) as he has repeatedly on film followed those normal social cues.
    As if people don't act differently when they are on camera than they do when in private. I guarantee you that I behave in a much less socially acceptable manner when alone than I do when I know people are watching (scratch, scratch, scratch).

    And the reason I think he does the things in question is because he says he does and other people says he does.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have done so already. You can read the thread.
    Telling me to look for support is not support.

    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you showed a flaw in my logic. You now have to present the argument that shows the flaw in your next post or retract the claim (not repeating it qualifies).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not aware of any such evidance.
    So your point is unsupported.
    Witnesses and confessions are evidence. He confessed to kissing without consent and various women have witnessed him doing it.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all, because his locker room talk does not substantiate the accusations. What the woman said is no less true or more true.
    But it's more believable since he confirms that he engages in the kind of activity that they accuse him of.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Had trump in the bus said the opposit, the woman would not be made more a liar.
    Actually, it would make them less believable. If he didn't know he was being recorded and said that he would never kiss a woman without her consent, his claim would be credible (because there's not much reason to think he's not telling the truth) and therefore would take away from the believability of his accusers.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think however, are you making a more general evaluation. Like, I don't like him because he walked in on woman, spoke poorly of them in private and have several accusers.

    If that is the case, then your welcome to that and your personal opinion has some "basis".

    My objection is the truthfulness of any of the indiviaul claims is still very weak. The most substantial proof is the walking into the locker room thing. (which we agree with).
    However if your insitance is that he is guilty or likely guilty of sexual assault in a way that rises above the all too common rule that I object to. You have a long way to go to support that is a reasonable conclusion.
    The dressing room and the sexual assault are two different issues.

    So you concede that he did walk into the dressing room in order to get an eyeful of undressed women without their consent. Right? Now can I assume that you are morally appalled by this activity? And can I assume that this would give one a good reason to think that Trump's character regarding women is poor?

    Assuming that is the case, it adds credibility to the notion that Trump kisses on women without their consent for doing such a thing is hardly contrary to a guy who violates women's privacy for his own sexual gratification.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See football locker room example.
    What about it? As far as I can tell, the point of that is to show that society has some kind of double-standard regarding the opposite sex in certain rooms. That, as far as I can tell, has no relevance to my argument so I will repeat it.

    I am talking about Trump’s alleged actions which does qualify as sexual assault. He said he performed such actions and some women said that he performed such actions with them. Those women are witnesses to his behavior. Being the subject of someone’s behavior does not mean that you are not a witness to it.

    And BTW, the argument that a female reporter in the men's locker room does not show a double-standard. I spelled out why Trump's behavior in the dressing room is reprehensible and the reasoning does not apply to the female reporter. She didn't enter without consent and there's no evidence that she entered the locker room for her own sexual gratification. So they are different things.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you have made my point.
    I accept your concession that not saying "no" is acceptance otherwise called "consent" .

    ...drops mike.
    Boy, that's silly.

    I was assuming that you hold a reasonable moral standard regarding Trump's behavior in the women's dressing room and simply asking if my assumption is incorrect and likewise assume that if you don't actually disagree, then you agree.

    It takes some pretty tortured logic to turn that into a concession that if one does not say "no" to sexual activity, then they consent and then think it deserves a mic drop. Seriously, is THAT your position regarding consent? If she doesn't say "no" NO MATTER WHAT, then it's consent? I believe I pointed out at least a couple of scenarios where not saying "no" definitely does not mean that consent was given. Do you challenge me on that or not? If not, then my point stands (since at ODN unchallenged arguments stand so unlike sexual activity, not saying anything does constitute acceptance of the point).

    So assuming one can see the difference between and ODN debate and sexual activity, it's silly to apply my comments regarding the debate to sexual activity.

    So you should probably pick up the mic.

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Great, so when I visit Louisiana early next year I can come by and grab your ****. Awesomesauce! I got big strong hands so get yourself ready!
    Are you suggesting that unless I say no, I'm consenting?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So a guy brags that he can and has kissed and groped women univited. Then women say he kissed and groped them univited. And that is speculation? Its Hearsay? When the perp admits he does a thing, and then witnisses confirm he does a thing, that's just speculation. Dude, this is one of those moments where I have to very carefully guard my respect for you because you are working overtime to undermine it with this crap fest.
    Well, I appreciate that there is some level of respect. So lets simplify my position.
    Let me split it up into three distinct parts that I see.

    1) Character. Is he the sort of man that would do X.
    2) Accused. Did the events alleged occur.
    3) Are they criminal or something we should concern ourselves with at a higher level then #1


    In regards to #1, I am personally on a very close page. My objection to those such as the media and many people in general, is that I see it as feigned indignation. It is selective in it's nature as the people doing it are generally so hypocritical that I do not value their outrage. (I could go in to much, much more detail on the depths and levels to which I object to even some of the accusers).

    #2, my objection is the connection of #1 to #2. You particularly and others seem to think that his statements in a locker room conversation, is admission to the specific crimes alleged by the accusers. It may establish #1 easily, but it does nothing to substantiate the claims of the individual woman. What he said on the bus, doesn't even mean they were ever in the same room as him, how then could it be any kind of admission of guilt? yet you have used it exactly like that, and admission of guilt to these specific crimes.

    I mean, suppose I came to you and said.. Man I steal crap all the time. Grab gum right off the shelf in front of the register.. they never catch me and could care less that it's missing.
    Then someone says "that dude stole my car". Does that make me a car thief? Do you logically conclude that I stole the guys car? Certainly you can establish that I may be the kind of person who would steal a car. Or maybe I was just boasting of things I never actually did? Then of course more people come out saying I stole their car as well. Now i supposedly stole 5 cars. How would that play out in court? Would they even allow the simple accusations to be heard as evidence? And how strong of evidence is it?

    I simply object to the strength of the evidence in the form of unsubstantiated accusations.

    3) My final objection is to the nature of some of the accusations, and how some much lesser "evils" are being equated. specifically the last one with the porn star and 2 friends. (see thread).


    ----
    So, yes all we have is speculation and hear say. The woman's testimony are hear say to us, and have no other apparent support and in some cases opposing eye witness. Granted that guy was a scumbag too, but everyone seems to take the word of a porn star/aka prostitute as gospel. So the double standards abound.

    If all that causes you pause of personal respect.. then I'll take it. Because my position is reasoned and supported. People generally not concerned with any kind of real value and respect of woman, the sacred nature of the human form, or the value of privacy and respect of genders, or even objective morality, they are all crying fowl.. and I'm terribly uninterested in their pleas. Especially in light of their defense of the even more evidenced perp on the other side.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) Character. Is he the sort of man that would do X.


    In regards to #1, I am personally on a very close page. My objection to those such as the media and many people in general, is that I see it as feigned indignation. It is selective in it's nature as the people doing it are generally so hypocritical that I do not value their outrage. (I could go in to much, much more detail on the depths and levels to which I object to even some of the accusers).
    But your reaction to people's supposed feigned indignation and hypocrisy is pretty irrelevant to the issue at hand which is whether Trump is the sort of man who would do X. Whether others think this or that have no bearing on what kind of person Trump is. The whole issue of what others think looks like a red herring.

    And besides that, I don't think you've made a solid case for people being hypocritical. Your argument for the hypocrisy is based on false equivalences and therefore is invalid. As it looks like you aren't responding to me anymore, I won't take the time to explain further but am certainly willing to do so.

  10. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Are you suggesting that unless I say no, I'm consenting?
    That seemed to be the standard you were operating by so I'm just going with it. Personally I think that if someone doesn't expressly consent, you don't touch them, especially not in a sexual area of the body. But since you didn't "get it" I figured you run by a nother standard so unless you object, your **** is all mine for grabbing. Now if you feel differnetly, and think that grabbing peoples junk without permission is wrong, just let me know and we can cancel our encounter and perhaps have coffee or something instead.

    I mean, suppose I came to you and said.. Man I steal crap all the time. Grab gum right off the shelf in front of the register.. they never catch me and could care less that it's missing.
    Then someone says "that dude stole my car". Does that make me a car thief? Do you logically conclude that I stole the guys car? Certainly you can establish that I may be the kind of person who would steal a car. Or maybe I was just boasting of things I never actually did? Then of course more people come out saying I stole their car as well. Now i supposedly stole 5 cars. How would that play out in court? Would they even allow the simple accusations to be heard as evidence? And how strong of evidence is it?
    I hear you. The thing is, this isn't a courtroom or a legal case. Its a social issue/question/concern. We won't get trials on his ***** grabbing in most of these cases, nor are these women seeking damages from him (there may be some specific cases where they are, I've not heard of any new ones beyond the child rape accusation, but I've not dug into it.

    So its a judgement call on our parts, not a legal case. Do we think it more or less likely that Trump has sexually assaulted women in the way he described having done to Billy Bush? My judgment is I think he probably did. He bragged about it. He seems the kind of person who would. There are multiple women claiming he did who have plausable stories. Most of them have little motivation other than personal outrage to make the claims.

    Those things are super hard to prove in court and for good reason. We can't put people in jail on the strength of accusations alone. But in the social realm, we can certainly form our opinion based on the accusations and circumstantial evidence.

    So for your example, you say you steel gum all the time. and a shopkeeper tells me you stole gum from him specifically, I'm inclined to beleive him even if he didn't catch it on tape or find the gum on you. I might not convict you in court, but I'd think you did it anyway and wouldn't trust you in my store. Had you never bragged to me about the habbit, well I'd be a lot less inclined to believe the accusation though I might consider it depending on what I thought of your general moral character and outlook on private property.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Women Abandoning Trump Are Hypocritical

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    This is a silly post. There is nothing wrong with being against illegal immigration and radical Islamic terrorism (the true positions Trump holds, not the pretend stand liberals like to assign him.)

    Pretending that he said and meant something other then what he actually did and then repeating it endlessly is, indeed, a common liberal tactic that has been used to decent effect in the past. Ppl are starting to catch on to the liberal playbook and by not be fooled by it anymore.
    I'm very sorry I let this thread slip; some family issues arose that I had to take care of and it's been a long recovery. I did have plenty to say about this topic, many of the post I'd say I agree with to some extent, however this post is outrageous.

    This is a straw man at best. Where did I say it was wrong to oppose illegal immigration and radical Islamic terrorism? My argument is simply "Donald Trump has said offensive and crass things about various groups of people. Being offended when you're on the chopping block is hypocritical."

    The man has been a walking cannon of offensive behavior. Let me clarify; I am not offended, nor do I think he is "morally" wrong. I believe that to sit at his rallies, listen to his speeches and nod in agreement until he calls out your particular group is silly.

    However, after reading through the various posts I can admit that I am wrong to use the term hypocrite. On this point I concede that my argument was flawed. It's not hypocritical, because that would imply that the woman who walked out do not practice their beliefs; which they obviously do.
    Witty puns...

  12. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by : Trump vs Hillary
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 15th, 2016, 10:24 PM
  2. Donald Trump for President ?
    By Vandaler in forum Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 18th, 2011, 06:39 PM
  3. abandoning kids...should parents get them back
    By Jclark in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2007, 05:45 PM
  4. Abandoning Planets
    By Castle in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 26th, 2006, 04:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •