Weinstein: Guilty.

[Uber Genius]

Seriously? your first thought is blame the victim?

virtue signaling? At your age?

That question is the first I asked when one of my daughters had to flee a person's apartment during a first date.

What was rule # 1 I asked? Women didn't just discover that men come in a range that goes from "Christ-like" to "predator." That range has been around for centuries or longer.

I have never been to my employer's home unless it was a Christmas Party. It would be strange for them to make the request. Further, I wouldn't go there if I new my boss had a history of sexually assaulting women, which it now seems to be the case with Weinstein.

Extremely stupid and dangerous behaviour of course does not excuse Weinstein nor can it be said to be a justification.

You attacked a strawman to virtue signal.

 

[Uber Genius]

Apartment is spelled with one p, and going to someone's apartment doesn't justify sexual assault.

It wasn't offered as a justification...seems like a bigger miss than the spelling of the word "apartment." Why the strawman argument?

Do you think it laudable that a person makes such a risky and questionable judgement?

Do you think that she was the only one working for Weinstein that wasn't aware that he had a multi-decade history of sexual abuse in the workplace?

So again, given that we all agree that Weinstein is evil, which seems uncontroversial, do you know of anyone foolish enough to put themselves into such a perilous situation?

Suppose there was no crime the first time that woman went to the apartment, if she told you as a friend that she was planning on going back there, would you really not warn her that she was making a huge mistake by trusting that predator?

(I am sending this without spellcheck since I know you will reflect that in your comments)

 

[Cimorene]

It wasn't offered as a justification...seems like a bigger miss than the spelling of the word "apartment." Why the strawman argument?

It would require being uber obtuse to fail to comprehend the underlying implication of the comment regarding the apartment.

 

[Uber Genius]

Sexual predator in the 1970s. Ignored by the Hollywood elites since at least the 1990s. 13 women included in the Ronan Farrow investigative series at New Yorker. Many have testified that many knew of Weinstein's abuse and didn't report. This seems to be like the predators in the Catholic Church in that the larger community knew and did nothing. I hope he rots in prison. But I also hope that this emboldens women to be quick about their reports to police, campus police (another source of coverup of rape), and to HR departments. As a father of four daughters and a wife who works with powerful men, I find this issue of great import personally.

 

[Uber Genius]

It would require being uber obtuse to fail to comprehend the underlying implication of the comment regarding the apartment.

"Failing to comprehend the underlying implication" A.K.A creating and attacking a straw man. But nice try, many here will miss your fallacious mistake. And you did achieve some virtual signaling. I tried to rate your post VS but that is not yet an option at CF.

 

[Cimorene]

Edit. Not worth taking the bait for a BINGO game, lol. Ignore feature was made for a reason.

 

[Uber Genius]

Notice how quickly people stuff words in other people's mouths so they can judge them and virtue signal. This is crazy.

We can hold the position that Weinstein is a evil person who should have been put in jail 30+ years ago, AND

No one who works for Weinstein and is an attractive woman should ever be alone with him no matter what the context.

These claims above are not mutually exclusive. To claim they are is to create a false dilemma. Clearly the the second option is BOTH statements can coexist. If that is the case one can and should respond with both claims, but if they get the order wrong and make the second claim first, it in no way suggests that Weinstein is not guilty or evil.

These are elementary observations and I am surprised to have to bring them up.

 

[Uber Genius]

Oops you did it again.

Yep...called you out for logical fallacies, and virtue signaling. No "Oops" about it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Would you allow your wife to go to the private appartment of her boss, alone?

I don't "allow" my wife to do anything. She's an adult capable of making decisions for herself. Most of her male coworkers are gay, but I wouldn't have a problem with her going over to any of their houses, including the straight ones.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

My thoughts? Good, guy deserves to live out his life in jail. Now the victims should be adequately compensated by asset-stripping Weinstein himself, as he has been able to avoid personal payouts by using his firm's insurance.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

virtue signaling? At your age?

That question is the first I asked when one of my daughters had to flee a person's apartment during a first date.

What was rule # 1 I asked? Women didn't just discover that men come in a range that goes from "Christ-like" to "predator." That range has been around for centuries or longer.

I have never been to my employer's home unless it was a Christmas Party. It would be strange for them to make the request. Further, I wouldn't go there if I new my boss had a history of sexually assaulting women, which it now seems to be the case with Weinstein.

Extremely stupid and dangerous behaviour of course does not excuse Weinstein nor can it be said to be a justification.

You attacked a strawman to virtue signal.

LOLOL. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't "allow" my wife to do anything. She's an adult capable of making decisions for herself. Most of her male coworkers are gay, but I wouldn't have a problem with her going over to any of their houses, including the straight ones.

My best friend in grad school was a married woman. We spent plenty of times alone in the other's apartment.

 

[Arcangl86]

Off-topic a bit: After serving his sentence, I’m sure his career as a movie producer is over. But there are other jobs for a man who behaves badly around women. Like being a Supreme Court justice.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Look at Polanski. Literally a fugitive from justice and still making movies.

 

[JackRT]

Off-topic a bit: After serving his sentence, I’m sure his career as a movie producer is over. But there are other jobs for a man who behaves badly around women. Like being a Supreme Court justice.

Why not shoot for the Presidency?

 

[WolfGate]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his appartment?

When you say "she", which one of the 6 women who testified he had assaulted them at the trial are you thinking about? Perhaps it was the one he sent a driver to pick up for a business meeting, she thought in a public place, but instead the driver took her to his place. Perhaps you meant the one he assaulted in the restaurant hallway. Maybe it was one of the dozens who didn't testify but have publicly indicated they were also assaulted. The guy was a serial predator.

 

[High Fidelity]

Here's to hoping he dies behind bars, scared, lacking control over his situation and with the rest of his days haunted by his past. Just like his victims.

 

[Michael]

Extremely stupid and dangerous behaviour of course does not excuse Weinstein nor can it be said to be a justification.

Fortunately the jury agreed with you.

I think this is a great case in the sense that it shows that juries can deal with complicated cases and still make the right decision.

 

[Lazarus Long]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his appartment?

Let's victim blame, shall we?

 

[Lazarus Long]

It wasn't offered as a justification...seems like a bigger miss than the spelling of the word "apartment." Why the strawman argument?

Do you think it laudable that a person makes such a risky and questionable judgement?

Do you think that she was the only one working for Weinstein that wasn't aware that he had a multi-decade history of sexual abuse in the workplace?

So again, given that we all agree that Weinstein is evil, which seems uncontroversial, do you know of anyone foolish enough to put themselves into such a perilous situation?

Suppose there was no crime the first time that woman went to the apartment, if she told you as a friend that she was planning on going back there, would you really not warn her that she was making a huge mistake by trusting that predator?

(I am sending this without spellcheck since I know you will reflect that in your comments)

Why do you defend a rapist?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Harvey Weinstein found guilty in landmark #MeToo moment



Acquitted of the biggest charge, but still going to prison.

Thoughts?

These women knew sex would happened and kept coming back for more. So they would get part in movies. And know they're playing the rape nonsense.