It was suggested in the thread that I might be getting neg reps for bad logic, not politics.
However I think it is the opposite. When I suggest people fill in the middle, many in politics just reject the complexities and go right to the easy, feel good position. Even if there might be complexities involved that would slow down the jump to conclusion.
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle is a common logical fallacy. Rare in serious analysis, it often appears as a rhetorical device that encourages audiences to reject complexity in complex situations, excluding consideration of range of mid-range choices to instead consider only extreme positions.
For instance you say if there is employee/employer relationship involved its harassment, and if there is unwanted sexual contact it is rape. So how do you parse what happens in the alley behind the bar when the client gives the stripper a couple 20s for a blow job?
Or if a house wife runs her hand up the leg of a cute handiman.
There are complexities involved in the Weinstein situation, and what a boss does in a button factory and what anybody does in Hollywood, can not be judged, and should not be judged by the same standards. And, the mindset of the people involved, and the relationship between the people needs to be considered. To not consider the complexities is using the logic of the excluded middle.
May I remind you that who I wish to please, and who I wish to help is my decision, not yours.
If there are people less fortunate than you, that you wish to help, please do so.
I pay my taxes and give to charity and volunteer in the local community. I care about the place. I do not have unlimited funds and have to watch out for my retirement and the security of my wife.
Liberals are very liberal with other people's money. Don't try and shame me into giving my money to other people's children. Those lives are the responsibility of their parents. They are just as fortunate to be in this country as I am.