• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Takei Accused of Sexually Assaulting Former Model in 1981

Goshin said:
In a very loose sense, but really no, because....

Person1 is a rich and influential producer who can bring success, fame and wealth to those he chooses for starring roles, or deny them.

Person2 is a struggling actress or actor looking for a break who is desperate for the role, since not getting it means going back to waitressing at some diner.


If the former implies that the one thing depends on the other, it is a coercive situation imho....
Click to expand...

I don't know, that's a tough one. Seems like both parties are willing participants. I don't see force being used. How many aspiring actors go into the office hoping for a chance at the "casting couch"?
 
countryboy said:
I don't know, that's a tough one. Seems like both parties are willing participants. I don't see force being used. How many aspiring actors go into the office hoping for a chance at the "casting couch"?
Click to expand...



Depends on the attitude of the actor/actress I suppose. If they walked in hoping to boink the producer for a slot, that's called whoring.

If they got pressured into it reluctantly, that's coercive and an abuse of power.


Imagine you're working some crap dead-end job, and get an interview for your dream job, and the interviewer says its yours if you (insert sexual act here). Not a nice choice to put on someone right?
 
Goshin said:
Depends on the attitude of the actor/actress I suppose. If they walked in hoping to boink the producer for a slot, that's called whoring.

If they got pressured into it reluctantly, that's coercive and an abuse of power.


Imagine you're working some crap dead-end job, and get an interview for your dream job, and the interviewer says its yours if you (insert sexual act here). Not a nice choice to put on someone right?
Click to expand...

No, it's not a nice choice, but it's still a choice. Unless of course, some sort of physical force is used.
 
Goshin said:
Depends on the attitude of the actor/actress I suppose. If they walked in hoping to boink the producer for a slot, that's called whoring.

If they got pressured into it reluctantly, that's coercive and an abuse of power.


Imagine you're working some crap dead-end job, and get an interview for your dream job, and the interviewer says its yours if you (insert sexual act here). Not a nice choice to put on someone right?
Click to expand...

If you take the offer? I guess it’s a little like negotiating any contract. If you don’t like the price, it’s not really coercion to tell you that no pay no get. But, if you sign, you accepted the deal.
 
Fletch said:
You should talk :roll: With regard to Takei, how do you know it is true and not slander? What evidence did the accuser bring to the table? Answer: none. That makes slander the logical choice.
Click to expand...

So you're joining in with stupid, it's the right choice for you. Whether we know if it's false or not is irrelevant to the fact that slander is only if it's false.

if Takei wants to pursue an accusation of slander, and get vindicated if he wins, he's free in America to do so. But here you are saying that when someone during this me_too wave makes an accusation, it's logically slander. And we wonder why these people didn't come out all these years ago, people like Fletch are here to try and take them to court to shut them up.

It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid and destructive. Fletch-logic, stupid or stupider?
 
countryboy said:
No, it's not a nice choice, but it's still a choice. Unless of course, some sort of physical force is used.
Click to expand...


I'll grant you that it falls short of rape (some would disagree) but it is certainly an ugly abuse of power and worthy of condemnation.


As far as Takei goes, this is just hearsay at this point. I'd have to see more proof before throwing him under the bus.
 
Goshin said:
I'll grant you that it falls short of rape (some would disagree) but it is certainly an ugly abuse of power and worthy of condemnation.


As far as Takei goes, this is just hearsay at this point. I'd have to see more proof before throwing him under the bus.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
countryboy said:
I don't know, that's a tough one. Seems like both parties are willing participants. I don't see force being used. How many aspiring actors go into the office hoping for a chance at the "casting couch"?
Click to expand...
An honest question, have you had formal sexual harassment training? Because this is like the most obviously illegal one.

quid pro quo harassment occurs in the workplace when a manager or other authority figure offers or merely hints that he or she will give the employee something (a raise or a promotion) in return for that employee's satisfaction of a sexual demand.
Click to expand...

Choice is 100% irrelevant in such cases, and not just on these matters, on a whole host of abuses of power and authority.
Why are you bringing up "choice" as though it's morally relevant in such matters?

As Goshin mentions, it may also be prostitution, depending on where and the specifics. Offering something of value in exchange for sex, that's a choice all-right, kind of like it's a choice to commit any crime...
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
An honest question, have you had formal sexual harassment training? Because this is like the most obviously illegal one.



Choice is 100% irrelevant in such cases, and not just on these matters, on a whole host of abuses of power and authority.
Why are you bringing up "choice" as though it's morally relevant in such matters?
Click to expand...

Lol. Who really needs "sexual harassment training"? Thinking adults know right from wrong. ;)
 
countryboy said:
Lol. Who really needs "sexual harassment training"? Thinking adults know right from wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't find your ignorance on these topics amusing, personally, I find it sad.
 
Mach said:
So you're joining in with stupid, it's the right choice for you. Whether we know if it's false or not is irrelevant to the fact that slander is only if it's false.

if Takei wants to pursue an accusation of slander, and get vindicated if he wins, he's free in America to do so. But here you are saying that when someone during this me_too wave makes an accusation, it's logically slander. And we wonder why these people didn't come out all these years ago, people like Fletch are here to try and take them to court to shut them up.

It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid and destructive. Fletch-logic, stupid or stupider?
Click to expand...
Like I said, you should be the last person to call others stupid.

Let me explain this in the simplest possible terms so that you can understand it. If someone makes a charge and supplies zero evidence to back it up, that is slander. For example, There is a woman who claims that you grabbed her breast at a party in 2012. Is that slander or are you guilty?
 
Crosscheck said:
I wonder that same sentiment. If one wanted to ruin you I can't think of any thing more powerful than accusing your of being a pedophile. And with that same thought I don't think there should ever be a statue of limitation.
But unfortunately, how does one prove guilt or innocence.

What is interesting is the difference between the public's view of the Cosby's accusers and the Weinstein's accusers.
Click to expand...

I disagree with regard to statutes of limitation. They are put in place primarily to insure a fair trial. Evidence gets old, gets lost, witnesses die and move away. After 30 years it may be impossible to defend against a charge because any evidence that can exonerate someone has disappeared.
 
Fletch said:
I don't have anything to worry about and it is not a good thing if people are being smeared with false accusations. You have zero evidence that Takei did what this guy claims he did. Yet George is already guilty in your mind. That is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Quote me saying I think Takei is guilty of a crime, because it's false, and you know it. You're desperate to have a point, yet they continue to elude you. I like the guy, I hope he didn't do it, but it's 100% irrelevant.
 
Polar Bum said:
A former model and actor is accusing Star Trek icon George Takei of sexual assault in 1981. The accuser, Scott R. Brunton, who was 23 at the time of the alleged incident, claims that Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable.

George Takei Accused of Sexually Assaulting Former Model in 1981

So, Im not sure what to think here....are we seeing more of this as a result of the Weinstein flood gates bursting, or is it a matter of people looking for their 30 seconds of fame and a payoff?

Maybe both?
Click to expand...

I say sue him for slander and make him prove it.
 
Polar Bum said:
A former model and actor is accusing Star Trek icon George Takei of sexual assault in 1981. The accuser, Scott R. Brunton, who was 23 at the time of the alleged incident, claims that Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable.

George Takei Accused of Sexually Assaulting Former Model in 1981

So, Im not sure what to think here....are we seeing more of this as a result of the Weinstein flood gates bursting, or is it a matter of people looking for their 30 seconds of fame and a payoff?

Maybe both?
Click to expand...

You answered your question with the second statement. Seems no-one is exempt even gay celebs.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, come on now... A vulnerable moment...

Should I accuse the beautiful brunette a few years back of taking advantage of me because of a "vulnerable moment?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they are the ones who have worked so hard to make normal sexual activity a crime.

Let them stew in their own juices. Let them be the ones to fix this.
 
Fletch said:
If someone makes a charge and supplies zero evidence to back it up, that is slander. For example, There is a woman who claims that you grabbed her breast at a party in 2012. Is that slander or are you guilty?
Click to expand...
100% lies.
You are tripling down on stupid.

Defamation is not what you wrote, clearly:

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:
published
false
injurious
unprivileged
Click to expand...

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits

The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." (For a definition of actual malice, see the "History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.")

People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.
Click to expand...

So not only are lying about what constitutes slander, it's actually even worse for celeb/politicians because they have to show malice.

Even more absurd, you are accusing these people and possibly the reporters and publishers of legal slander, literally without any evidence whatsoever, as you rage against the lack of evidence (!).

If he wants to take it to court, he can, and he may be vindicated, or with all that legal digging around, they may find it's not justu true, but they may find a lot more cases of true, a long history of such behavior. Does the celeb/politician want to risk it? Certainly not if they are guilty.

So we'll see which one fight it and which ones don't, with interest.
 
Last edited:
There sure a lot of gay celebs getting accused of sexual improprieties.
 
Mach said:
100% lies.
You are tripling down on stupid.

Defamation is not what you wrote, clearly:





So not only are lying about what constitutes slander, it's actually even worse for celeb/politicians because they have to show malice.

Even more absurd, you are accusing these people and possibly the reporters and publishers of legal slander, literally without any evidence whatsoever, as you rage against the lack of evidence (!).

If he wants to take it to court, he can, and he may be vindicated, or with all that legal digging around, they may find it's not justu true, but they may find a lot more cases of true, a long history of such behavior. Does the celeb/politician want to risk it? Certainly not if they are guilty.

So we'll see which one fight it and which ones don't, with interest.
Click to expand...

I said slander, you went through a lot of trouble defining defamation. Try honest debate once in a while. Oh, and why did you grab that womans breast back in 2012? Shame on you.
 
Fletch said:
I said slander, you went through a lot of trouble defining defamation. Try honest debate once in a while. Oh, and why did you grab that womans breast back in 2012? Shame on you.
Click to expand...
Quadruple down on stupid:
Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander."
Click to expand...

It's never too late to admit you're wrong, and liberals are good at forgiveness and reconciliation, just try it!
 
Mach said:
Quadruple down on stupid:


It's never too late to admit you're wrong, and liberals are good at forgiveness and reconciliation, just try it!
Click to expand...

So, is Takei just as guilty as Roy moore?
 
apdst said:
So, is Takei just as guilty as Roy moore?
Click to expand...

How did you get that from what you quoted?

Fletch thought slander had nothing to do with defamation, he was shown to be wrong.
Fletch thought slander was when you don't prove it's true, he was shown to be wrong.

Now apdst rides in on his white horse, and posts irrelevant **** as usual.
 
Mach said:
Quadruple down on stupid:


It's never too late to admit you're wrong, and liberals are good at forgiveness and reconciliation, just try it!
Click to expand...


slan·der.
.

[ˈslandər]


NOUN

1.the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation:

Until the accuser brings some evidence to the table, it is slander. In your world the accusation against you for groping that womans breath in 2012 is not slander until you disprove the claim. So disprove it.
 
Mach said:
How did you get that from what you quoted?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you condemn Takei yet. I'm asking if you are. You're as convinced of Takei's guilt as you are Moore's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom