LogFAQs > #890592756

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not saying you're equating the ENTIRE thing to Moore, but you're equating the one piece, which is "He didn't disclose it," which is the point I'm trying to make.

Moore did something illegal. The normal person should think "Hey, I should disclose this."

Franken's is ambiguous as far as how much he actually knew of what damage what he did caused. So treating it under the same "this should be disclosed" umbrella is expecting a bit much.

That's the only part I said you're equating, in that you're saying both acts fall under the "Should have been disclosed" umbrella. The argument others have had is that Franken's is not so black and white in so far as knowing it was a problem to even need to be disclosed in the first place.

I'd just like to repeat this since my previous post was taken the wrong way, apparently.

Yeah. I mean, I disagree with Rock on this subject in general, but this reaction makes his arguments feel more based in emotion than in logic. Roy Moore committed verifiable crimes towards six women (I think he has nine accusers, but three are not criminal in nature). Al Franken, at least POSSIBLY, had a lapse in judgement that could be considered a mistake, towards ONE verifiable individual. To expect Franken to recall and disclose an event that he may not have even realized was an issue feels far too strict given the circumstances, and it paints a picture of Rock's overall mindset that, even if unintentional, comes off in a highly negative fashion.
---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso