Datepalm Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 No, I was just talking about the politician and the soldier (who was twenty, about to leave military life anyway and was flirting with him aggresively).It's a talent I have.And the link http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFullThe hell? Have you read that article? Which is mostly quoting the original report, btw. Also, why didn't you just say the Ramon case? What actually happened - did she or didn't she flirt, mostly (that she was about to finish with the army is totally irrelevant.) - is unknowbale with 100%, but the court came very strongly on her side with ample evidence, and that version is absoloutely sexual harrasment. (And so is the bizzaro paranoid conspiracy theory/sex fantasy brought up by Ramon anyway. Though possibly on her part too.) And, please, hugging. We're a huggy culture. Obviously theres no scientific way to measure this, but we do have a norm of smaller personal space than americans. Most of us still clearly distinguish hug-for-purpose-of-photograph from "I want you stick your tongue in my mouth now, in the middle of the PM's office, on the eve of a war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 1) Also, why didn't you just say the Ramon case? 2) What actually happened - did she or didn't she flirt, mostly (that she was about to finish with the army is totally irrelevant.) - is unknowbale with 100%, but the court came very strongly on her side with ample evidence, and that version is absoloutely sexual harrasment. (And so is the bizzaro paranoid conspiracy theory/sex fantasy brought up by Ramon anyway. Though possibly on her part too.) 3) And, please, hugging. We're a huggy culture. Obviously theres no scientific way to measure this, but we do have a norm of smaller personal space than americans. Most of us still clearly distinguish hug-for-purpose-of-photograph from "I want you stick your tongue in my mouth now, in the middle of the PM's office, on the eve of a war."1) Because outside our little circle nobody knows who that is.2) He was a very unwanted Minister of Justice for the justice system. Just saying.3) And one day, not far from now, someone will be dragged to court over hugging someone who didn't like it. Mark my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If you're hugging someone who didn't want it, you're doing it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 1) Because outside our little circle nobody knows who that is.2) He was a very unwanted Minister of Justice for the justice system. Just saying.3) And one day, not far from now, someone will be dragged to court over hugging someone who didn't like it. Mark my words.Are you serious?! C'mon, go all the way. Aaron Barak planted her, there in the office Ramon does not normally work at, ("the Justice System" knew the war was coming, I guess. Probably planned it, over coffee and hummus in Damascus.) and shes actually secretly a triathlete with strength in her tiny body to pin him down and force him to kiss her, all this to discredit him. Yes, becuase a hug can be a sexual, invasive, harmful thing. Just like a kiss. In our culture, a casual one between almost strangers of different gender is not usually considered such. That dosen't mean it can't be. You still haven't answered the question. Which version are yopu going by, Ramons or H's, and how is Ramon coming out as innocent in either of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You still haven't answered the question. Which version are yopu going by, Ramons or H's, and how is Ramon coming out as innocent in either of them?I don't think it warrents criminal prosecution. He should have suffered because he is a public figure, and she could be his daughter, and this isn't Italy, damn it, but maybe in this day and age if it's not criminal, politicians just don't care at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 I don't think it warrents criminal prosecution. He should have suffered because he is a public figure, and she could be his daughter, and this isn't Italy, damn it, but maybe in this day and age if it's not criminal, politicians just don't care at all.She sued, so it does warrant legal prosecution according to the law. Since you seem to accept her version, in which he took a phot hug as an excuse to force a totally unwanted, invasive kiss on a subordinate in the workplace, I can only conclude you don't consider that action as reprehensible enough to be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 1) She sued, so it does warrant legal prosecution according to the law.2) a. Since you seem to accept her version, in which he took a phot hug as an excuse to force a totally unwanted, b. invasive kiss on a subordinate in the workplace, 3) I can only conclude you don't consider that action as reprehensible enough to be illegal.1) She did not, in fact, sue. The State of Israel sued. Which, as we both know, can be capricious.2) a. Wasn't the whole point that he didn't get that it was unwanted? b. She wasn't his subordinate. 3) Reprehensibility has nothing to do with legality. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Grow up.No, you! :tantrum: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 1) She did not, in fact, sue. The State of Israel sued. Which, as we both know, can be capricious.2) a. Wasn't the whole point that he didn't get that it was unwanted? b. She wasn't his subordinate. 3) Reprehensibility has nothing to do with legality. Grow up.1. But I thought we were always right! 2. No. The whole point was that he violated her. It dosen't matter one whit what he thought while he was doing it. b. Not directly, but there was a massive power imbalance in his favour. 3. What the fuck? You're saying sexual harrassment laws should be repealed, as they're moral and as all mature people know, laws should be based on slimy realpolitic. Ok, i'm being facetious. I just think you're not bothering to think about what it is you type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 3) Reprehensibility has nothing to do with legality. Grow up.It is funny to go from reading your posts in the moderation thread to this. But anyway, surely reprehensibility has a great deal to do with legality, even if they don't always match up in perfect identity because of other competing concerns like privacy, etc. And really, reprehensibility is a term that begs defining, anyway. Things are both illegal and reprehensible because of the effects that they have on other people, or because they conflict with the goal of having a well-ordered society. There's a quite a lot of overlap, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It is funny to go from reading your posts in the moderation thread to this.It is funny reading your posts on the issue, while sporting a pic of a naked woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It is funny reading your posts on the issue, while sporting a pic of a naked woman.Funny because...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max the Mostly Mediocre Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Because it means she's a dirty whore, which in turn means it is literally impossible to sexually harass her, which in turn means she has no place participating in thread on sexual harassment.Right, Sam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Don't feed the troll, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Funny because...?Because, if she were doing it, in say, a workplace, she might be guilty of helping creating a hostile workplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Don't feed the troll, folks.Oh come on, I'm bored! :tantrum:Because, if she were doing it, in say, a workplace, she might be guilty of helping creating a hostile workplace.Surely the raised middle finger is more hostile than the nekkidness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It was your take on the samalander-inspired 100 post topic drift that got me thinking that we're just going to have to not engage directly with his pointless snipes :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It was your take on the samalander-inspired 100 post topic drift that got me thinking that we're just going to have to not engage directly with his pointless snipes :P:lol: Sorry, I got carried away. Back to the OT, whatever that was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumer Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 :lol: Sorry, I got carried away. Back to the OT, whatever that was?Foul mouthed schoolboys and grownups alike. I would say that in general, when you curse all the time it loses its bite. It just becomes an ugly part of the language. If cursing were reserved to those occasions where they are really felt for, it would enrich the language instead of degrade it. I think it's tied to a general trend in modern languages - the loss of proportionality. Everything good is awesome, great, fantastic, and everything bad is horrible, terrible, and so on. I think I sensed, at least where I' hangin', a beginning of an opposite trend: while the strong words become mild, the mild words become strong. You can say that a person is an SOB, a fucktard or whatever, it won't have any bite. But say that someone is genuinely a bad person, an unpleasant one, somehow it carries more weight. As if the use of the milder words carries with it sincerity that that does not exist otherwise.anywho, when and where's your next trip, DP? hopefully it will be a better school than Ziv. (remind me where you went to HS in j-m?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I would say that in general, when you curse all the time it loses its bite. It just becomes an ugly part of the language. If cursing were reserved to those occasions where they are really felt for, it would enrich the language instead of degrade it.A really good point that I wish more people had in the forefront of their minds more often (and I include myself in that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.