J.C.MacSwell

A fourth woman has come forward: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/neil-degrasse-tyson-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-fourth-woman "...According to the report, Tyson "drunkenly approached" the woman at the event and allegedly proceeded to make "sexual jokes and propositioned her to join him alone in his office." ..." Later in the article: (bold by me) "...A second woman, Ashley Watson, told Patheos she was forced to quit her job as Tyson’s assistant after he made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. Watson claimed Tyson had “predatory tendencies” and once tried to convince her to have sex with him. Watson pointed to a time when Tyson invited her to his apartment to “unwind for a couple of hours” in 2018. The former assistant said the meeting was uncomfortable and ended with an “awkward and incredibly intimate handshake.” She said she quit her job after “negative interactions” with her boss. ..." With regard to this previously reported incident, I don't believe the writer of the Fox News article had any more information than we have already been discussing here, so stating "Watson claimed Tyson once tried to convince her to have sex with him" is likely incorrect, and sounds like they are forcing their opinion into a claim by Watson. If true Fox would be well advised to apologize to both Watson and Tyson and clarify... ...don't hold your breath

LOL. Like you could find a family with just one...

This is not an example of someone convicted. If convicted, he could be impeached and removed from office. I think the better bet would be voting him out, but impeachment is entirely possible if what you claim is true and the facts become clear.

If Tyson doesn't know the guy well enough to know whether or not it would be OK, he should not assume it is. If the guy took offence or said something, Tyson would owe him an apology and refrain from doing anything similar going forward, unless it is made clear it is OK. So it is not just women, but nature being as it is, if a man does that it is likely to make a women more uncomfortable than it would a man, generally speaking, though not necessarily. Both woman and men would often be more comfortable if a woman did it (pull aside a shirt collar or similar), generally speaking, but again not always. That answer might be considered sexism to a degree, but that is from experience. I think it is an obligation to avoid making people uncomfortable with regard to their personal space when it can be avoided.

Of course. I make distinctions between liberals, who have views I support, leftists, who have good intentions but go too far in trying to make things what they consider fair, and extreme leftists that have some pretty distorted views and rhetoric. They make generalized statements about "white men" and call you racist and misogynist if you don't agree. That is why I said extreme leftists, to make myself clear. "Here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation" could be a statement that anyone makes, but dimreepr directed it at Raider, who neither blamed the victim or advocated against further investigation. That's borrowing rhetoric from the extreme left, plain and simple. And you called me out for pointing that out, yet give dimreepr a pass on it, while claiming I'm being unnecessarily dividing and partisan... For what it is worth, I don't believe anyone here is on the extreme left, but there is an awful lot of support for that rhetoric at times.

I'm pretty sure we can assume She does...pretty safe to say He doesn't exist until we have some very conclusive evidence...

Since suspending judgement until sufficient evidence comes forward is the new extreme leftist version of "blaming the victim" then sure, here we go again...

Very good point, but is that not an argon bottle?

Only if it was full/pressurized before starting the cut...

Agree. But IMO, two of the cases are pretty much agreed upon with regard to the facts, outside of the intentions and beliefs of "her" and "him". Asking Tyson to admit any attempt at seduction, or what his feelings were toward the women, is taking the #metoo movement to far. It becomes a witch hunt. It also takes away from the serious allegations of the lady who claims she was drugged and raped.

So. The "stripped down to his underwear" did come from you, as I expected. Trying to make it sound as bad as you can...for what purpose?

So Watson, who was there, says she took the comment as a bad joke, but you, Ten oz, focus on the bold, written by the journalist that was trying to make a story out of it. Are you going to retract that in the bold, or do you have a evidence she made that claim?

Are you sure? Standards do change. It's important for us to remember they are different for different people, and we should all proceed with a degree of caution not to offend. Tyson seems to have understood that and attempted to make amends on two of these cases, whether he did anything indefensibly wrong or not. The third accusation of drugging and raping is much more serious, of course. Nothing like that has ever been acceptable in our lifetimes.

Do what? Try to seduce her? **Taking off shoes and shirt (but still have a tank top on)? Gaze into her eyes while doing a native handshake? Certainly not OK if it made her uncomfortable but hardly a crime. Where did anyone claim he "stripped down to his underwear"? Did you make that up? **That might seem weird and creepy on a typical day in December...and perfectly normal on a hot day in July...but not a crime either way

But...I thought that was your job...

OK. Let's speculate. They flirt. He invites her up to his apartment. Despite having a boyfriend, she is intrigued enough to go. She turns him down. He is disappointed, but accepts it. She feels a little guilty, as she should, but also blames him (he would certainly be to blame as well in this fictitious scenario, especially being married) The whole thing is in the category of "none of our business", unless you are his wife or have reason to believe he tried to coerce her with regard to her job. This, at it's worst based on our understanding at this time, is insignificant in comparison to the drug and rape accusation. If anything, it tells us he understands no means no, at least with regard to this accuser. The logic is in the category of: All males are pigs Tyson is a male Tyson must be a pig Tyson should start by apologizing for being a pig, before any attempt to defend himself further

I honestly don't know him well enough (not at all personally) to say. I do know that in the most innocuous accusation (Pluto tattoo) he claimed he didn't remember it, but admitted that it would be something he would tend to do, and would have apologized on the spot if he had realized it was felt to be inappropriate. (Easy to admit to after being accused of something 1,000 X worse, so nothing to assuage any doubts to any great extent)

I generally don't make black and white (not referring to race) statements, but if he intentionally drugged and raped her I say he remembers it. He is clearly not someone with mental issues of the kind that would lend itself to that. If you are referring to the other two cases, I don't really care, to be honest. (assuming the basics we know at this time)

All "relative". Left and right are on a Kaluza Klein extra dimension...if you get far enough Left, you are on the extreme right.

I asked for how you would respond if you were innocent. And I think you answered it. Thank you. So you admit that this theoretically more media savvy yet honest Tyson would be looked upon much more favourably than you would be, with your equally honest, but in your opinion more principled, response?

I would describe this as suspending belief one way or another. If the accusations are as described, I would consider two of the accusations as "none of my business" with the third much more serious one of drugging and raping being very concerning. One seems at worst clumsy and bordering on a little creepy (the tattoo one) One seems at worst an attempt at seduction that was rejected. Nothing illegal (his wife would have a right to be upset if true) other than if there was some attempt at coercion of a subordinate. The third is in a different stratosphere. I certainly would not expect him to "acknowledge she believes this" as he did to some extent in the other two cases.

Assuming he is being 100% honest, how would you have liked him to respond to the allegations? What would you have done differently if you were in his shoes, or more exactly in the shoes of someone that is how he has described himself?

0 m/s?

That's a pretty bizarre conclusion given that he might say anything.

One of his goals that has seemed consistent is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. To some degree he has succeeded in that. Anyway...enough of my "defending" Trump... More my point of interest was the potential for emergence of a moderate centrist party. Something I would like to see if the two current ones remain polarized.