Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Science vs. Scruples
Replies
-
Crikey! I missed that in my hurry to be a gracious correctee.Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »...
Moreover, he was a Nazi, making me the first to mention Nazis on this thread; and thus, in accordance with the corollary to Godwin's law, causing me to have forfeited the debate.
No worries
Aaron mentioned Hitler in the first reply. Was inevitable for this topic I think.
I hereby de-forfeitize.
3 -
If people use their job or platform to victimize others then we have to make sure that the opportunity to do that is removed. So they need to lose their job or whatever platform they used to access victims. It is easier for someone like a coach or teacher, they can be suspended or banned from the profession. If someone depends more on their celebrity or status then it is a little more difficult. So it is up to the industry and consumers to make sure that person never regains that kind of status again. So yeah - not supporting his endeavors would be part of that. (I have no idea who this guy is so just a general statement.)4
-
In the US it is not... simply because there is no universal definition that includes all groups and does not promote one group over another. To date, the Supreme Court has struck down all attempts at such a definition.5 -
In the US it is not... simply because there is no universal definition that includes all groups and does not promote one group over another. To date, the Supreme Court has struck down all attempts at such a definition.
Okay??? Pick another thing that is an American Crime to fit my example then if you can't work your mind around it.7 -
In the US it is not... simply because there is no universal definition that includes all groups and does not promote one group over another. To date, the Supreme Court has struck down all attempts at such a definition.
Okay??? Pick another thing that is an American Crime to fit my example then if you can't work your mind around it.
Would drunk driving be a good example? If you are convicted of drunk driving, should you lose your job?0 -
Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
It essentially boils down to poor contract negotiations. Any attempts to further this "movement" is pure emotion and hyperbole.
To your question, no...unless you are somehow a holistic purist and throw babies out with bathwater, then it is irrational to discard objective evidence simply because person x didn't care for the advances of person Y.
I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.19 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
His peer-reviewed scientific pubs & credentials will continue to be what they are: science.A bit of background context... Aragon sells his expert opinion in his research reviews, speaking engagements, and I would also guess he makes some significant advertising money. He has also produced some relatively famous peer-reviewed literature regarding protein timing, bodybuilding contest prep nutrition, and BCAA supplementation. These journal publications contribute to his credentials and therefore his earning potential.
If his career is now destroyed because of his behavior, we may never get anything new from him.
The body of scientific knowledge is full of things learned in ways now considered immoral. Mengele and Tuskeegee are among the most infamous, but there's plenty of other examples out there. The knowledge stands.
As for research published by people who've done things that some other people have sometimes considered immoral, I think that covers all research ever done by human beings. Look at Galileo vs. the Inquisition.
If the research is worthwhile, it will be done by somebody. The church stopped Galileo, but it didn't stop others from working out planetary orbits and the physics involved.
However -
This guy's expert opinion is his opinion, and if you're paying for that, you're paying him. If you're buying the stuff he advertises, you're paying him.
IMO, once you know that he's behaved in ways you find unacceptable, whether you can give the guy your money without wanting to vomit is a matter of your own morality.
Interesting point regarding Galileo - the church was already quite aware of heliocentrism, but wanted to keep this information silent. Their explanation being that man would not be able to accept a universe where they were not the center. Objective evidence supports that the true goal of this was to retain political power, hence the use of the Inquisition, which essentially boils down to coerced speech.
A bit of caution is in order when attempting to coerce speech. This marks the beginning of very dark times in human history (e.g. hate speech legislation is the UK).5 -
In the US it is not... simply because there is no universal definition that includes all groups and does not promote one group over another. To date, the Supreme Court has struck down all attempts at such a definition.
Okay??? Pick another thing that is an American Crime to fit my example then if you can't work your mind around it.
Don't have a problem wrapping my mind around the idea, I'm just curious where you draw the line on the stand of 'commit a crime, lose your job' ? Ridiculous example, but if I am out on a weekend on my own personal time and get a ticket for speeding (which is a crime), should I then lose my job?3 -
Would drunk driving be a good example? If you are convicted of drunk driving, should you lose your job?Don't have a problem wrapping my mind around the idea, I'm just curious where you draw the line on the stand of 'commit a crime, lose your job' ? Ridiculous example, but if I am out on a weekend on my own personal time and get a ticket for speeding (which is a crime), should I then lose my job?
I picked hate speech because its a crime where there is still a victim (or a group of victims) and the behaviour is disgusting. I don't know if you're intending to try and downplay the seriousness of sexual assault by comparing it to speeding instead but you're at risk of sounding like you are.
If you drink drive or speed and hit someone, a lot of companies would have no problem firing you tho.
7 -
Would drunk driving be a good example? If you are convicted of drunk driving, should you lose your job?Don't have a problem wrapping my mind around the idea, I'm just curious where you draw the line on the stand of 'commit a crime, lose your job' ? Ridiculous example, but if I am out on a weekend on my own personal time and get a ticket for speeding (which is a crime), should I then lose my job?
I picked hate speech because its a crime where there is still a victim (or a group of victims) and the behaviour is disgusting. I don't know if you're intending to try and downplay the seriousness of sexual assault by comparing it to speeding instead but you're at risk of sounding like you are.
If you drink drive or speed and hit someone, a lot of companies would have no problem firing you tho.
Do not put words in my mouth - I made no comparison to the sexual assault, I was trying to discover the bounds on your assertion of committing a crime should be grounds for losing your job. I think you covered that very nicely with your reply - victim-less crimes do not qualify but crimes where there are victims do.4 -
Would drunk driving be a good example? If you are convicted of drunk driving, should you lose your job?Don't have a problem wrapping my mind around the idea, I'm just curious where you draw the line on the stand of 'commit a crime, lose your job' ? Ridiculous example, but if I am out on a weekend on my own personal time and get a ticket for speeding (which is a crime), should I then lose my job?
I picked hate speech because its a crime where there is still a victim (or a group of victims) and the behaviour is disgusting. I don't know if you're intending to try and downplay the seriousness of sexual assault by comparing it to speeding instead but you're at risk of sounding like you are.
If you drink drive or speed and hit someone, a lot of companies would have no problem firing you tho.
Hate speech is simply speech you don't agree with. It is absurd to attempt to legislate this and will end up badly.
So you advocate a strict punitive justice system? Is redemption a possibility? At what point should this person be worthy of employment?
17 -
Would drunk driving be a good example? If you are convicted of drunk driving, should you lose your job?Don't have a problem wrapping my mind around the idea, I'm just curious where you draw the line on the stand of 'commit a crime, lose your job' ? Ridiculous example, but if I am out on a weekend on my own personal time and get a ticket for speeding (which is a crime), should I then lose my job?
I picked hate speech because its a crime where there is still a victim (or a group of victims) and the behaviour is disgusting. I don't know if you're intending to try and downplay the seriousness of sexual assault by comparing it to speeding instead but you're at risk of sounding like you are.
If you drink drive or speed and hit someone, a lot of companies would have no problem firing you tho.
Honestly, yes I probably am downplaying assault. Are you "upplaying" it, or is that my own sensitivities impacting how I read/interpret your post? IMO, rape is not the same thing as grabbing someone's butt. But both are labeled as assault (at least as I understand it here in the States). And that was my point - not everyone who has been accused of assault should be viewed or treated the same way. Different situations can and do have very different circumstances. Some people are scumbags, thru and thu, no doubt. But not everyone.
Coming back to A.A., I stand by my thoughts. His research and his knowledge is what it is, and isn't affected by character or his behavior (for me). I have no problem if people don't want to book him for appearances or don't want to train with him or whatever else. But to discredit or ignore his research seems (to me) to be nothing more than spiteful.6 -
I have mixed feelings about "bad" things you do in your free time being judged and punished by your employer. In my head it depends on what you did wrong and what your job is, but I'd think different people would see each situation differently, which is a hot mess.
But my understanding is he was behaving this way at professional conventions/gatherings so he was essentially being a drunken *kitten* at work. If I got arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct on the weekend at a bar, I don't think my employer should fire me for it on Monday, as long as I show up ready to work. If I get drunk at a work conference and start groping men and asking if they want to meet me in a bathroom stall, then yeah, I think that's a fire-able offense.11 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
His peer-reviewed scientific pubs & credentials will continue to be what they are: science.A bit of background context... Aragon sells his expert opinion in his research reviews, speaking engagements, and I would also guess he makes some significant advertising money. He has also produced some relatively famous peer-reviewed literature regarding protein timing, bodybuilding contest prep nutrition, and BCAA supplementation. These journal publications contribute to his credentials and therefore his earning potential.
If his career is now destroyed because of his behavior, we may never get anything new from him.
The body of scientific knowledge is full of things learned in ways now considered immoral. Mengele and Tuskeegee are among the most infamous, but there's plenty of other examples out there. The knowledge stands.
As for research published by people who've done things that some other people have sometimes considered immoral, I think that covers all research ever done by human beings. Look at Galileo vs. the Inquisition.
If the research is worthwhile, it will be done by somebody. The church stopped Galileo, but it didn't stop others from working out planetary orbits and the physics involved.
However -
This guy's expert opinion is his opinion, and if you're paying for that, you're paying him. If you're buying the stuff he advertises, you're paying him.
IMO, once you know that he's behaved in ways you find unacceptable, whether you can give the guy your money without wanting to vomit is a matter of your own morality.
Just by way of clarification, as far as I know, he has never advertised or endorsed a product. He's spoken at length about this. He always felt it would compromise his objectivity as a researcher. If I recall correctly, he has a pay site in the past. I think it was called Research Review. I have no problem with his desire to monetize his work efforts. I believe he no longer has that site. But we all have to make a living. He also does personal training to elite athletes and celebrities. I think he was making a fine living prior to this issue coming to light.
If he moved from a subscription-based website to an advertising-based website, you're still contributing to his revenues if you visit his website. Whether that's something you want to do is up to you.0 -
How would I be bringing the company into disrepute if the company is unaffected???
The point I was making is that people do, and sometimes should, lose their jobs and income for much much smaller things than repeated sexual assault.
But to go with that point anyway, if I do not make it known anywhere that I work for my company and someone spots me writing anti-semetic or racists screeds all over the internet then yeah, I think it's okay for me to be fired for that. Because that's hate speech, which is a crime, like sexual assault.
No, hate speech is not a crime, nor should it be a crime.
As to the original question, the knowledge that has been shown by Aragon is not tainted so the knowledge still stands. The man on the other hand...
Depends on where you live. Some types of hate speech, in some countries, is a crime.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
His peer-reviewed scientific pubs & credentials will continue to be what they are: science.A bit of background context... Aragon sells his expert opinion in his research reviews, speaking engagements, and I would also guess he makes some significant advertising money. He has also produced some relatively famous peer-reviewed literature regarding protein timing, bodybuilding contest prep nutrition, and BCAA supplementation. These journal publications contribute to his credentials and therefore his earning potential.
If his career is now destroyed because of his behavior, we may never get anything new from him.
The body of scientific knowledge is full of things learned in ways now considered immoral. Mengele and Tuskeegee are among the most infamous, but there's plenty of other examples out there. The knowledge stands.
As for research published by people who've done things that some other people have sometimes considered immoral, I think that covers all research ever done by human beings. Look at Galileo vs. the Inquisition.
If the research is worthwhile, it will be done by somebody. The church stopped Galileo, but it didn't stop others from working out planetary orbits and the physics involved.
However -
This guy's expert opinion is his opinion, and if you're paying for that, you're paying him. If you're buying the stuff he advertises, you're paying him.
IMO, once you know that he's behaved in ways you find unacceptable, whether you can give the guy your money without wanting to vomit is a matter of your own morality.
Just by way of clarification, as far as I know, he has never advertised or endorsed a product. He's spoken at length about this. He always felt it would compromise his objectivity as a researcher. If I recall correctly, he has a pay site in the past. I think it was called Research Review. I have no problem with his desire to monetize his work efforts. I believe he no longer has that site. But we all have to make a living. He also does personal training to elite athletes and celebrities. I think he was making a fine living prior to this issue coming to light.
If he moved from a subscription-based website to an advertising-based website, you're still contributing to his revenues if you visit his website. Whether that's something you want to do is up to you.
I could be wrong but I don't think he operates a website. He did have a substantial social media presence though so your logic may apply. That presense is gone now.
BTW, I have no problem with people in fitness and fitness research making a living. AFAIK he refused to endorse products for the reasons I stated. Right now, he obviously has bigger issues that need to be addressed.
ETA: just checked. His Research Review website is still operational. So, I was mistaken.0 -
Honestly, yes I probably am downplaying assault. Are you "upplaying" it, or is that my own sensitivities impacting how I read/interpret your post? IMO, rape is not the same thing as grabbing someone's butt. But both are labeled as assault (at least as I understand it here in the States). And that was my point - not everyone who has been accused of assault should be viewed or treated the same way. Different situations can and do have very different circumstances. Some people are scumbags, thru and thu, no doubt. But not everyone.
A grope and a rape are never treated equally. Not by anyone, not by any justice system in any country. That’s not your opinion, that’s facts. If you are downplaying what he did do with “well it’s not like he raped anyone” that is... wow. What he actually did do is violate multiple women’s personal space, made them feel uncomfortable and maybe even afraid for their safety at work, possibly restricting their opportunities for career advancement. This behaviour hurts people, it can affect self esteem, confidence, where you feel able to work and be welcome and since he then tried to label one of the women involved as a fantasist that could affect how potential employers and sponsors view her character and she could lose out financially. He did this repeatedly, with apparently no fear of ever being called out and you have to assume would have continued until he was made to stop. Is that not enough to be angry about?10 -
I'm not real sure where to go from here. It feels like you and I are having parallel conversations. I never meant to downplay what he did. I never meant he didn't hurt people. I never meant people shouldn't be angry. I only meant to separate his behavior from his information/knowledge as they are (for me) different animals.5
-
Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
It essentially boils down to poor contract negotiations. Any attempts to further this "movement" is pure emotion and hyperbole.
To your question, no...unless you are somehow a holistic purist and throw babies out with bathwater, then it is irrational to discard objective evidence simply because person x didn't care for the advances of person Y.
I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.
Are you seriously suggesting that the women in this situation are responsible for what happened to them in some way? Because that's how it reads. Basically, you come across as saying they were asking for it.12 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
It essentially boils down to poor contract negotiations. Any attempts to further this "movement" is pure emotion and hyperbole.
To your question, no...unless you are somehow a holistic purist and throw babies out with bathwater, then it is irrational to discard objective evidence simply because person x didn't care for the advances of person Y.
I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.
Are you seriously suggesting that the women in this situation are responsible for what happened to them in some way? Because that's how it reads. Basically, you come across as saying they were asking for it.
It would take a tremendous amount of confirmation bias to come to that conclusion.
I find this behavior disgusting. I'm also bothered by how many people it took before one shouted "STOP!", but this is an unfortunate reality of human nature. In a given population less than 40% will act, assuming someone else will take responsibility and take action. People remained silent to protect...what exactly? One brave soul after how many remained silent waiting for someone else to speak of while he continued his alleged predatory behavior.
I don't see the point in blaming. Energy should be put into implementing solutions on changing behavior so that the first person will shout "STOP!" everytime.
10 -
Honestly, yes I probably am downplaying assault. Are you "upplaying" it, or is that my own sensitivities impacting how I read/interpret your post? IMO, rape is not the same thing as grabbing someone's butt. But both are labeled as assault (at least as I understand it here in the States). And that was my point - not everyone who has been accused of assault should be viewed or treated the same way. Different situations can and do have very different circumstances. Some people are scumbags, thru and thu, no doubt. But not everyone.
A grope and a rape are never treated equally. Not by anyone, not by any justice system in any country. That’s not your opinion, that’s facts. If you are downplaying what he did do with “well it’s not like he raped anyone” that is... wow. What he actually did do is violate multiple women’s personal space, made them feel uncomfortable and maybe even afraid for their safety at work, possibly restricting their opportunities for career advancement. This behaviour hurts people, it can affect self esteem, confidence, where you feel able to work and be welcome and since he then tried to label one of the women involved as a fantasist that could affect how potential employers and sponsors view her character and she could lose out financially. He did this repeatedly, with apparently no fear of ever being called out and you have to assume would have continued until he was made to stop. Is that not enough to be angry about?
I think the issue is this.
If something a crime then it should be punished within the criminal justice system. If something is not a crime then is it then the role of the public to exact whatever punishment they see fit through public pressure?
If we all agree groping is wrong then it should be a crime and if someone gropes someone it should be a criminal offense....the punishment given and enforced by the judicial system. The issue is if the person isnt convicted and therefore is not punished quite often the public basically attempts to hang them in the court of public opinion. And for that to happen all it takes is for some members of the public to just be convinced the person is guilty for whatever reason.
I get that....but it also makes me uncomfortable. I feel like we have a justice system for a reason and if someone should be punished for bad behavior it should be through that system where there is some accountability and clear punishments....not via social media and ostracism or job loss.5 -
Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
I should have stopped reading here; this "joke" is so puerile that I don't know how I could have believed any discussion of value would be in this post.I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.
The women were at professional conferences and events associated with them. What are they meant to be held responsible for? Talking to other people in their profession while believing they should be safe from being treated as sexual objects? What hussies, believing that they should be accorded respect.14 -
I still feel he has a lot to offer as far as research/knowledge goes. The question is whether or not he will take the appropriate actions to redeem himself - and if so, if other people will be willing to acknowledge it and let him back into the fold at some point.
As someone who is essentially a junior researcher, I can not understand why anyone would trust him enough to "let him back into the fold." He's made his bed and now he needs to sit in it. That isn't to say that I don't think people can't be rehabilitated generally, but given what he's done I see no need for any sort of push to eventually bring him back into the fold that is his current field.
I think the only good thing about this is that it isn't the typical "researcher in academia who is supervising PhD students as well as teaching grad and/or bachelors students" situation.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Science and objective reality aren't a person....you can agree with thrm without having that agreement associated with whatever person just happened to point it out to you.
It is perfect okay to agree that the sky is blue even if it was Hitler who told you that.
As far as research the person in question actually conducted? Assuming it is unbiased professional research I'm not sure how they gain financially from you agreeing with it. Such research should be in the public domain. If this is "science" that the person sells for a fee on their own website and can't be found anywhere else then I'm not sure how "science" it actually is.
Science and research is frequently sold. Most reputable academic journals are subscription based and they are expensive. Books sold by academic publishers aren't free, there's the entire pharmaceutical industry, etc. One of the major issues that independent researchers, that is to say researchers that aren't based at an academic institution, is that they don't have access to institutional subscriptions to journals. UCSF's library wrote about the cost of journal subscriptions here, there's another article in Nature about it here, and there's an article in the Guardian about this here.
Because Aragon appears to run his own journal, if you could call it that, (that is named after him - I'm doing a lot of side eyeing), he will get the profits of people subscribing to that journal - though it is very inexpensive comparatively speaking. He also has articles that are published in other journals. He won't gain any money via those works but he will gain cloute/academic capital.0 -
I'm not real sure where to go from here. It feels like you and I are having parallel conversations. I never meant to downplay what he did. I never meant he didn't hurt people. I never meant people shouldn't be angry. I only meant to separate his behavior from his information/knowledge as they are (for me) different animals.
Well no, you started by saying that being a bad person doesn't mean you can't be good at your job and that he was maybe not an inherent threat to society. My point was that your behaviour can absolutely affect whether or not it is appropriate that you be allowed to continue in your job. And that yes, he is a threat to others.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I think the issue is this.
If something a crime then it should be punished within the criminal justice system. If something is not a crime then is it then the role of the public to exact whatever punishment they see fit through public pressure?
If we all agree groping is wrong then it should be a crime and if someone gropes someone it should be a criminal offense....the punishment given and enforced by the judicial system. The issue is if the person isnt convicted and therefore is not punished quite often the public basically attempts to hang them in the court of public opinion. And for that to happen all it takes is for some members of the public to just be convinced the person is guilty for whatever reason.
I get that....but it also makes me uncomfortable. I feel like we have a justice system for a reason and if someone should be punished for bad behavior it should be through that system where there is some accountability and clear punishments....not via social media and ostracism or job loss.
He has publicly admitted to it and has also admitted it was serial behaviour so guilty/ not guilty doesn't factor here.
These women may not want to press charges and for a crime that is (wrongly, in my view) seen as minor there will not be a case in the public interest. But we still know he did these things. Should we continue to reward him with our time, money and attention? Saying "hey these things you said you did, that's disgusting and you're disgusting for doing them" is hardly a harsh or undeserved punishment.4 -
Nevermind1
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Honestly, yes I probably am downplaying assault. Are you "upplaying" it, or is that my own sensitivities impacting how I read/interpret your post? IMO, rape is not the same thing as grabbing someone's butt. But both are labeled as assault (at least as I understand it here in the States). And that was my point - not everyone who has been accused of assault should be viewed or treated the same way. Different situations can and do have very different circumstances. Some people are scumbags, thru and thu, no doubt. But not everyone.
A grope and a rape are never treated equally. Not by anyone, not by any justice system in any country. That’s not your opinion, that’s facts. If you are downplaying what he did do with “well it’s not like he raped anyone” that is... wow. What he actually did do is violate multiple women’s personal space, made them feel uncomfortable and maybe even afraid for their safety at work, possibly restricting their opportunities for career advancement. This behaviour hurts people, it can affect self esteem, confidence, where you feel able to work and be welcome and since he then tried to label one of the women involved as a fantasist that could affect how potential employers and sponsors view her character and she could lose out financially. He did this repeatedly, with apparently no fear of ever being called out and you have to assume would have continued until he was made to stop. Is that not enough to be angry about?
I think the issue is this.
If something a crime then it should be punished within the criminal justice system. If something is not a crime then is it then the role of the public to exact whatever punishment they see fit through public pressure?
If we all agree groping is wrong then it should be a crime and if someone gropes someone it should be a criminal offense....the punishment given and enforced by the judicial system. The issue is if the person isnt convicted and therefore is not punished quite often the public basically attempts to hang them in the court of public opinion. And for that to happen all it takes is for some members of the public to just be convinced the person is guilty for whatever reason.
I get that....but it also makes me uncomfortable. I feel like we have a justice system for a reason and if someone should be punished for bad behavior it should be through that system where there is some accountability and clear punishments....not via social media and ostracism or job loss.
Sure the public, and his industry, should respond how they see fit. There is a role for the judicial system in punishing the offender, but that doesn't mean that has to be the only consequence. The judicial system has no way of removing or banning someone from their industry. Just because someone has had a punishment decreed, or not, by the judicial system (and we have all seen how that works) doesn't mean that the public, or his industry, has to accept him back into the fold. Why should they? To give him back his platform? That he abused to begin with?
I hear all the time when these kinds things hit the news that I should let the courts decide before I form an opinion. But there is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion - we are free to come to our own conclusions and respond accordingly.3 -
sunfastrose wrote: »Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
I should have stopped reading here; this "joke" is so puerile that I don't know how I could have believed any discussion of value would be in this post.I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.
The women were at professional conferences and events associated with them. What are they meant to be held responsible for? Talking to other people in their profession while believing they should be safe from being treated as sexual objects? What hussies, believing that they should be accorded respect.
I bow to your shaming skills.
Was a crime committed? ...or does that matter? ...offense has been committed and the mob demands blood.8 -
sunfastrose wrote: »Anyone else find the hilarity behind the use of the "pound sign" # in this?
PoundMeToo
I should have stopped reading here; this "joke" is so puerile that I don't know how I could have believed any discussion of value would be in this post.I see it as a farce and the inevitable conclusion of worshiping celebrities. Assuming both parties are responsible adults of sound mind then it is up to both to accept the responsibility that comes with power and autonomy. You can't desire power without the responsibility that comes with it. Peter Parker would still be crying in a bedroom somewhere and the story would have sucked, much like every victim narrative.
The women were at professional conferences and events associated with them. What are they meant to be held responsible for? Talking to other people in their profession while believing they should be safe from being treated as sexual objects? What hussies, believing that they should be accorded respect.
I bow to your shaming skills.
Was a crime committed? ...or does that matter? ...offense has been committed and the mob demands blood.
What the actual *kitten*?
Rape jokes are never funny dude.6 -
I keep coming back to this thread to post, then I keep deleting my post and leaving... rinse and repeat.
There seems to be a lot of emotion involved in this topic which is making it hard for people to read/listen to what others are saying. Yes, this includes me. There are a lot of layers to this topic...3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions