Ten oz

Pronouns aside I think when a normal person HONESTLY extends condolences they do not want to cause anyone additional hardship. Regardless of the initial intentions Trump is clearly causes further pain to this family. It is very ugly that this continues.

By whom.....No one. That is the point I was making. I was referencing misguided thinking. I suppose it all depends on ones definition of justified. I personally think Trump is illegitimate. Not only did he receive millions of less votes, his party undemocratically oppress voter turn out, but he also accepted the help of a foriegn aggressor and continues to provide cover for their attack on our system of govt. That said "ends justify the means" is a popular saying in this nation where various hyper capitalistic mindsets hold winning above all else. Trump won, he is in the White House, his SCOTUS pick is on the bench, and all that. Trump's denials and lies have been extremely effective at delivering him and his supporters victory. Of course it is disgusting but it has worked and he and his supporters couldn't be happier about it and don't care about the ethical side of it one bit.

We all are intellectually lazy to a certian extent about things we don't follow closely. It is easier to just split the difference between the pro and con of issues we don't know much about than it is to do the homework and come to a real conclusion. Trump says nearly all media is fake while all media insists it is not. The intellectually lazy person splits the difference and accepts that sometimes it is fake. The difference between what claims lands one in territory where news is in fact being fabricated to some extent. Everyone isn't passionate about politics. Everyone isn't following closely. So it is easy to just accept that at least some of Trump's claims are probably true. He is the President after all and if he was pathologically lying surely something would bedone about it right; so the lazy thinking goes. We all do it with different things to varies degrees. In this case it show how powerful denial can be and to a point justifies Trump's constant counter attacking even when he is clearly wrong.

Is this really an issue unique to "Hollywood" or one which is common amongst many groups. Whether we are talking about wealthy stock brokers like Jordan Beltfort or athletes like Wilt Chamberlain who claimed to have slept with over 15,000 women; misogynistic behavior and sexual exploitation of women seems to be game everywhere it can be. From Bill O'Reilly to Ray Rice, Anthony Weiner to Bret Farve Harvey Weinstein to Ted Haggard or Warren Jeffs; why is Hollywood any more uniquely hypocritical than News Media, political leaders, sports leagues, mega churches, and etc? How many children were molested by Catholic priest, underage girls forced to marry by Mormon sect leaders, women sexually harrashed at FoxNews, and on and on and on. Harvey Weinstein is a terrible person and so are all the people who knew he was criminally assualting women and did nothing. Sadly his behavior and that of those around him who did nothing exists all over and isn't unique to some projected singular notion of "Hollywood". Do you feel this way about FoxNews and Ruport Murdochs News Corp broadly because they paid women off all while they star personalities were preaching family values? Can we dismiss everything Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, and the Republicans politicians who guest spot of those shows as big fat hypocrites? As a self label conservative do you really have a high horse to sit here. The President you voted for is a well known misogynist who brags about trying to slept with married women and using his fame to grab women by the p####. The news media outlets who support conservative political views have been paying women off to keep them quiet for years. Yet I am to believe you are offended by the fact Reese Witherspoon didn't have the courage to speak up sooner about her victimization; seriously? I think you are painting with a very large brush. Not everyone to a person in the film industry knew every detail about Weinstein and not everyone in the film industry is politically liberal. Besides sex scandals the film industry is also rife with addiction, personality disorders, and etc. How many of the women who have come forward with stories about Weinstein have also been through rehab for addiction or other forms of treatment for depression and what not. I don't think it is fair to demagogue Weinstein victims or those who might haveknown victims unless we know for a fact they were in a position to act. People like Courtney Love claim they knew and warned women about Harvey Weinstein but can we really sit hear and blame Courtney Love for Harvey Weinstein because she never went public; would anyone have listened to Courtney Love and between her bouts of depression and addiction could she have really even handle the additional responsibility/attention. Overall I think EVERYONE in this thread has already agreed that those who knew of crimes and were in a position to act should have acted. Those in a position to stop Weinstein had a responsibility to act and it is unethical for them not have. That said I think the definition of what "being in a position to act" is can be very difficult to define. I think those involved in paying women off are guilty and should be ashamed for sure. The victims themselves hoowever is something entirely different. To me the analogy would be blaming those who have overdose on opiods for the opiod crisis itself because if they just did overdose there would be no crisis. It is closed loop thinking and doesn't lend itself to a workable solution.

1a - That is your opinion based on how you feel about the issue. 1b - You think it is a poor example because there are so many other factors yet it is the only example which exists. The failure for to find the causality between sex assualt and legalized prositution to exist in Nevada which you claim would exist broadly were prostitution to be legal is certianly relevant. Additionally the link you provided addresses legal prostitution and rape in rural areas. All of Nevada is not Las Vegas. So dismissing Nevada stats all together based on Las Vegas alone is not prudent in my opinion. No two states, counties, cities, etc are identical. Ultimately the link you provided refutes the position you are advocating with the only caveat being more research would be best: "Among the rural counties in the state, those with legalized prostitution have rape rates in 2007 that are over 5 times larger than rural counties without legalized prostitution (Table 2). The average rape rate in rural counties with legalized prostitution (46per 100,000 population) is also higher than rape rates in the urban counties within the state (42 per100,000 population).Overall, these data provide no evidence that legalized prostitution may reduce sexual assaults by providing a legitimate outlet for sexual desires. The data are more consistent with the assertion that legalized prostitution may increase a woman’s risk of sexual victimization." https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Rape-in-Nevada-1990-2007.pdf 3 - You are right I have not proven prositution is against the greater good. I have reiterated the well known fact that workers in the sex industry are less healthy (mentally and physically) than society at large. I do not need to prove anythingmore than that as I am not the one advocating for some massive change; you are. It is you who has not proved there is any greater good is increasing the size of the unhealthy sex industry; which is what you are advocating. You insist it would decrease sexual assualt yet even your own "evidence" (reference 1b) does not support that position. 4 - Not history. Today, the here and now, people who work in the sex industry ( porn, exotic dancing, etc) have higher rates of addiction, depression, victimization, etc. 5 - That is you opinion and you are entitled to it but I feel the facts do not align with that opinion. What I see in the statistics is an exploitable group of sick or damaged people being taken advantage of and I don't think society at large should encourage it. As previously cited: " In the US, in 2002, the US Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation" " In addition to internationally trafficked victims, American citizens are also forced into prostitution. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, "100,000 to 293,000 children are in danger of becoming sexual commodities. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_prostitution#America " Between September 2005 and June 2006, 361 youth were recruited using extensive outreach methods and snowball sampling. The prevalence rates for abuse in the sample were 73% for physical abuse; 32.4% for sexual abuse; 86.8% for emotional abuse; 84.5% for physical neglect; and 93% for emotional neglect. Univariate and logistic regression analyses demonstrated that not only was sexual abuse independently associated with sex work, but emotional abuse was as well. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254224/

1a - Sexuality is listed as the least important factor. 1b - In the United States Nevada is the only state with legal prostitution. They have about 30 legal brothels which meet the standards for safety you outlined. Of 5\the 50 states in the U.S. is #36 for sexual assualt per 100k women with #1 being the lowest and #50 being the highest. Nevada is real world example of what you are advocating and it isn't even amongst the top half of States when it comes to sexual assualt. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/sutter-alaska-rape-list/index.html 3 - People freely choose to use herion. We cannot confuse choice with the greater societal good. You are talking about law; Govt has a responsibility to make decision for the greater good and not merely personal choice. People would still smoke in on planes and in restaurants if allowed to make that choice. Ultimately studies have shown (previously linked) that there is a connection between victimization and sex work. Porn actresses and prostitutes are often people with emotional, mental, and chemical illnesses and addictions. Exploitation of them is the sort of ethical factor I think govt officials need to consider when determining law. It child labor were legal do you think there are children who would willingly agree to work and parents who would willingly agree to allow their children to work? Thankfully as a society we said no to child labor willing participants or labor. 4 - Your question was what was the difference between sex workers and stylists working at salons. I don't see what slavery has to do with the response I provided. More over Govt regularly intervenes with regulations or bans in an industry where the health (physical and mental) of employees in that industry is considered at risk. Long haul truck drives have limitations on hours they can drive, athletes must sit a specified amount of time post concussion, protective clothing must be worn in a variety of industries, drug testing and psychological testing is also common in many industries and etc, etc, etc. What makes being a sex worker different than being a hair stylists is the rate of victimization and addiction; the risks associated with the industry. You are not addressing them rather are implying that because the workers themselves accept those risk all is okay. I disagree. I think the legal sex industry as it currently exists in the United States needs to be significantly more regulated than it is: drug everyone regularly, no alcohol or prescription drugs allowed on sets, money set aside by production companies for regular psychological testing and counseling, work hour limitations, and etc. etc, etc. 5 - Of course it is a concern. I already provided links showing that past victimiztion and addiction are factor. A crack addict with willing do anything for crack. Just because a person says yes doesn't mean it is good. People willing choose bad things for bad reasons and hurt themselves all the time.

1) - two things, rape isn't about sex (1a) and prostitutes themselves are often themselves people who have been or are being victimized (1b): 1a - " Accounts from both offenders and victims of what occurs during a rape suggest that issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape, but the proportion varies and one issue seems to dominate in each instance. The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/910975 1b - " Between September 2005 and June 2006, 361 youth were recruited using extensive outreach methods and snowball sampling. The prevalence rates for abuse in the sample were 73% for physical abuse; 32.4% for sexual abuse; 86.8% for emotional abuse; 84.5% for physical neglect; and 93% for emotional neglect. Univariate and logistic regression analyses demonstrated that not only was sexual abuse independently associated with sex work, but emotional abuse was as well. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254224/ 1b (0.5) - " In the US, in 2002, the US Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation" " In addition to internationally trafficked victims, American citizens are also forced into prostitution. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, "100,000 to 293,000 children are in danger of becoming sexual commodities. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_prostitution#America 2 - I agree that anytime people are encouraged to test regularly and use protection it is a good thing. 3 - It is hypocritical but why does that mean prositution should be legal; perhaprs porn should be illegal? http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/ 4 - Do hair and nails for a living isn't associated with a history of abuse, addiction, or depression. See links for #'s 1b and 3. 5 - Are sex workers freely making that choice of sound mind; highly debatable in my opinion.

You are explaining this more patiently I than I would. I see the comparison as standard Whataboutism which reveals a lack of empathy via an inability to focus actual victims. Harvey Weinstein's victims weren't men, posters who get negative rep points, exclusively Liberal or Conservatives, or etc. They were women (girls in some cases) Weinstein sought to exercise leverage over in return for sexual gratification.

I read the post and provided my thoughts which in no way attacked. There is a difference between challenging the validity of what is said in a post and adding ones own thoughts on to a post. *I meant to qoute Silvestru; sorry

The down votes I have seen tar, waitforufo, and others receive in Political threads have been attached to posts which promote partisan conspiracies and inaccurate information which is provably false are meant purely to be divisive and insulting. I don't subscribe to the platitude in political discussions bothsides or all opposing views automatically have equal philosophical merit. Those who use false information and lies to support a position have no merit and get down voted. I understand that on an emotional level or a personal cultural value scale posters posters believe they being honest but being honest and being accurate aren't the same.

Weinstein to advantage of his position. If Weinstein was a police officer who had been given women he stopped for traffic violations the choice between a citation which would cost money and go on their driving records or a verbal warning in trade for sexual favors how would this discussion play out?I doubt anyone would be in here arguing that the drivers are partly responsible because they violated the traffic laws in the first place or that the police officer wasn't backing the law provided all the females agreed to the quid pro qou. I don't think citiesshould just warn pedestrians to stay away from every neighbor or park which some view dangerous (Cetral Park is a bad example as if has be relatively safe for a decade) but rather cities should add cameras, lighting, emergency call boxes, and etc to improve saftey. People should look both ways before crossing the street but that is a terrible example because a car driving in the street is performing a normal legal action. Weinstein was not a car driving in the street he was an out of control car driving through peoples homes. Parents don't tell kids to watch out for cars when they are playing legos in the living room.

So Witherspoon was victimized as a teen and now continues to be victimized by guilt? I don't read grow and improvement in her statement. I just see long enduring emotional pain. Many people feel regret and guilt over things they had and or have zero control over. I personally do not think shaming victims for how they dealt with their victimization or demanding a specific reaction from them is useful on a macro level.

Do we know to what degree they knew? Everyone is aware of criminals whether it is a family member who habitually burns trash illegally or a friend that uses drugs. Shall we all be ashamed for not stopping everything we are aware of or does degree matter? Their isn't crime against being a chauvinist, misogynist, bully, and etc. If Streep, Kidman, or whomever saw an assualt on another or without question knew of an assualt on another; yes they should be ashamed. I do not know that to be the case. Ultimately Weinstein is responsible for his behavior. Blaming victims, possible victims, those who might have known but have fears, and etc only muddies the water.

An exhaustive government survey of rape and domestic violence released on Wednesday affirmed that sexual violence against women remains endemic in the United States and in some instances may be far more common than previously thought. Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html I think you grossly underestimate the issue. Despite 20% (wow, what a staggering number) of the women in the United States believing they have been victimized you sarcastically post "men are pigs" to imply the notion is silly and a nonstarter. The scale of the problem is breathtaking yet typically met with doubt and suspicion. Last thing anyone who is the victim of anything wants to do is beg to be believed and then find a way to motive and rally people to combat their own lazy apathy. I think most people work to avoid confrontation. If walking down the street most people avoid the crazy person yelling, the pigs catcalling, the addicts using, and etc. The fact the to and inidividual so few stop to confront an issue doesn't mean the issue isn't real.

Wasn't the Election of an anti PC Twitter troll proof that society is NOT too PC?

So you are the real victim in all this....

This is basically to say that it is perfectly acceptable to misbehave so long as your brand of misbehavior is relatively common. That is it fine to drink and drive because so many young people do it once or twice. That unprotected (no condom) one night stands with people you just met are safe because it is relatively common. They are many negative things which are pervasive in society. Commonality of a behavior doesn't determine whether or not that behavior is good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal. Such basic ethics are taught to us at a young age with analogies like "if all your friends jump off a bridge would you". You are responsible for any stupid thing you did when you were younger and it really doesn't matter whether or not you believe others may have done similar things. Not if it was a crime. Youth is no justification. People had been coming forward and Weinstein had been paying people off. The full extent of his behavior was known to different degrees by different people. Clearly if someone was aware of a crime they should have reported the crime. That said it is unclear if anyone other than his victims actually were aware of his crimes. Broadly everyone else just knew he was a pig. As for why victims don't always come forward there are a variety of reasons: fear of further victimization, embarrassment, guilt, shame, lack of faith in the system to protect them, lack of faith in people generally, etc.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Hollywood Actor; isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger as well? Donald Trump is a reality TV star and Kid Rock is running as a Republican in MI. I never understood the well worn claim that the entertainment industry as a whole is all a specific thing socially or politically. Mr. Hollywood royalty Charleston Heston was the face of the NRA. All entertainment celebrities aren't the same. You can't lump Jesse "the Body" Ventura's libertarianism in with Martin Sheen's left-wing activism.

Wow, can't remember ever giving you a plus one before....

I have been talking about social media. I referenced social media specifically in the First post you quoted. My online anonymity follow by circulation comments were meant in context to be referencing social media; standard news media is not anonymous and social media is the way average citizens circulate info in 2017. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I said media rather than social media simply to be inclusive but I am primarily taking about social media as it is what Russia primarily used to interfere in 2016 and I did mention that already. Not that we are clear can you answer the question?

I don't see anyway to conclude the discussion regarding "your Excellency". I think if a person was fired for not calling someone that, provided the title wasn't fitting as previously described, they could make a legal complaint. It is a theoretical suit against a theoretical demand. Election laws absolutely do not prevent foriegn govts from using social media to promote propaganda. Election laws only cover watch those associated with campaigns do. Foriegn actors, anyone, can create all the Twitter and Facebook accounts they won't and promote any and all stories, conspiracies, ideologies, and etc they want.

1 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm I think it can be argued that demanding to be called 'your excellency" without appropriate reason (governors, ambassadors, and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops typically use the title) is offensive conduct as it is demands the use of an epithet which could lead a work environment where a reasonable person feels mocked or ridiculed. If someone were fired from a job for calling their supervisor/employer ma'am or sir rather than "your excellency" I believe they would have grounds for a harrashment suit unless that supervisor or employer met the standard criteria for being call "your excellency". 2 - So we should ignore things the President says since he has proven himself to be an empty loud mouth? I agree but it is tragic all the same. 3 - You are answering questions with challanges yet I have advocated nothing. I am asking if there should be limitations if/when speech is assisting promotion of foriegn propaganda designed to negatively impact the country? Currently there are none.

1 - True but even still employers find themselves at the center of numerous harrassment and discrimination lawsuits ever year. Any supervisor who demands being called "your excellency" is begging for trouble. Within a professional environment I think most people accept an obligation to be professional. One should call their boss ma'am or sir. Those are nuetral professional ways to address individuals. For the sake of structure within a team a variety of titles might be applied like "Chief", "Lead", "Director", "Point", and etc. These are just titles and not representations of a persons individual values. Calling someone by their professional title isn't a display of individual aduration. If I ever met President Trump I would call him "Mr. President"; that is his title and using it is not an endorsement. 2 - Yet the President still pondered it openly all the same. The executive branch has also been openly hostile to different media outlets and to an extent has attempted to punish them by banned cameras at press briefings and usual access to the administration. So I think the question is valid. This administration is doing what it can regardless of what's spelled out in the 1st Admendment. 3 - U.S. Constitutional rights only apply to those who are residents of the U.S.. However there is anonymity online and I think people would like to keep it that way. Not only that but if a citizen searches out foriegn propaganda and then circulates it aren't they (the citizen) protected by the 1st admendment to have the ability to do so? Which is why I referenced a death pact. Should freedom of speech be unfettered to the point on allowing our sovereign demise; foriegn aggressors to manipulate our society to the extent of influencing elections and policy? It is a difficult question to answer as many things in society are manipulated by disinformation and lies. From the climate change debate to taxes there is a lot of fake information out there and we obviously cannot and shouldn't trust the govt's to filter what information citizens can and cannot access. At the same time it is the govt's job to protect citizens from foriegn attack. So there is a real balancing act here.

I bold is the question I raised. The example atthe time was UC Berkeley but since that time wehave seen a much larger national discussions. psychological resident is asking the NFL to force players to stand for the anthem, President has pondered revoking NBC license, and more details have come out regardiong the manner in which Russian intelligence used social media to manipulate the 2016 election. All of these recent developments challange what the limits of free speech are and what expressions should be protected. 1 - Should an employer be able to force employees to participate in rituals meant to show individual aduration or respect? 2 - Should the executive branch be able to suspend or otherwise punish media? 3 - Should a nations govt (intellegence agencies) be able to intervene in media if that media is be exploited by foriegn aggressors to promote propaganda? If yes with what burdens or limits and if no does that make freedom of speech a death pact?

Objectification of women is a very real thing. As with many problems it simply isn't enough to change the law; attitudes broadly need to be changed. We have a sitting president who still won election after audio of him bragging about how easy it is to sleep with women when one is a celebrity. Donald Trump is 71yrs old and his wife is 47yrs old. The Sec of Treasury is 54yrs and married to a 36yr old. In society at larger, not merely Hollywood, the objectification of women is accepted. I think political figures like a Donald Trump are better examples of the problem than someone like Harvey Weinstein because political figures need public support and get it. Weinstein is just a backroom creep most know/knew nothing about till this scandal dropped. I know some people have a tit for tat partisan itch so I better be clear that this isn't a left vs right issue; Bill Clinton had sexual relations with a 24yr old in the Oval office, lied about it, and kept his job. Anthiny Weiner is heading to prison for sexting a minor. By in large society accepts that women sex objects. To a large extent dominance over women is viewed as part of what it means to be successful. Sayings like "women want him and men want to be him" encapsulate the attitude. Art reflects life. When we live in a society where the President publicly teases Boy scouts of America about the things old rich men do with young women on private yatchs why is Havery Weinstien even news?