This message was self-deleted by its author

[MiddleFingerMom]

131. If a person decided that the ONLY way to get someone's vote on a supremely important issue was...

.
.
.
... to have sex them, then one MIGHT say that person was "forced" to have sex with him/her.
.
Of their own choice and volition and for a noble cause. I think a better wording might have
been, "if you HAD to have sex with a Republican..." (say you lost a bet), but I also think the
intention/connotation would have been as "innocent/unintentional" (if not more so -- but the
non-specifity aspect is the important part).
.
.
.
Now, I don't think the OP had getting a deciding vote in mind when wording the question...
.
... any more than the OP had rape in mind. Sometimes we interpret at the lowest common
denominator... which, if the person had a history of doing that would be a no-brainer.
.
Otherwise, it would be worth a benefit-of-the-doubt question such as, "Were you making
light of the use of PHYSICAL force?"
.
There are lots of horrible things out there -- contemptible and condemnable things --
without our searching and/or reaching for things that just weren't intentionally introduced.
.
Number two... it's not always fair to accuse, judge, and sentence the OP based on changing
"that looks like you might have meant this..." to "you MEANT this... Many religions believe
omniscience to be limited to their god/gods -- I don't know of a single one that believes that
of a person (the Pope?). I see the self-presumption of omniscience far too often in DU threads
(though the dissolution of Meta has thankfully minimizd that, comparatively).
.
Number ONE (and FAR more important)... the memory of such specious accusations might, in
the general public's eye, have the effect of diluting the credibility of someone in the future
making what might have ordinarily been an undeniably credible accusation.
.
You might tally an "outrage point" now, but you do more harm than good to-and-for others in
the future -- and I KNOW that is not your intent.
.
.
.