US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9302

On November 22 2017 14:28 Danglars wrote:

That’s the church you just pack up and leave from.

“Judge Roy Moore graduated from West Point and then went on into the service, served in Vietnam and then came back and was in law school. All of the ladies, or many of the ladies that he possibly could have married were not available then, they were already married, maybe, somewhere. So he looked in a different direction and always with the [permission of the] parents of younger ladies. By the way, the lady he’s married to now, Ms. Kayla, was a younger woman,” Benham said on WAPI 99.5 FM Monday evening. “He did that because there is something about a purity of a young woman, there is something that is good, that’s true, that’s straight and he looked for that.”

When the hosts pointed out that Moore’s wife, Kayla, was divorced when she married Moore, which rather undermined Benham’s contention that he was looking for “purity” in a potential mate, Benham tried to change the subject by asking the hosts if it is acceptable for an adult man “to date and court a young lady who is 14 year old with their parents’ consent.” Benham clearly thinks that it is, but that line of questioning did not work out particularly well, since it prompted Murphy to ask Benham if he thinks it is acceptable for a man to date a 10-year-old girl if he receives permission from her parents, which caused Benham to angrily stumble around for a reasonable response.

“I don’t think that that would happen,” was all Benham could come up with while meekly insisting that the question was just “another logical fallacy.”

When Murphy explained he was asking the exact same question that Benham had posed but had simply changed the age of the girl in question, Benham endlessly protested and tried to dodge the question before eventually agreeing that a grown man dating a 10-year-old girl would be inappropriate.

“Congratulations, Flip,” said Murphy. “Now you are in the modern world.”

On November 22 2017 14:49 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:
Is their something going behind the scenes with the Charlie Rose thing? Its oddly consequential that Rose gained notoriety and popularity with his Manson interview, and now the day Manson dies a bunch of come forward accusing him of sexual misconduct. Could be a bunch of crazy Manson fanatics decided to troll Rose by making allegations against him. It just seems fishy that hours after his death, a dozen women come out against Rose.

On November 22 2017 13:32 Myrddraal wrote:


Well I think you're a shit and immoral person for saying that people are shit for having sex with each other after only knowing each other for 7 hours (of course I agree that it's probably a bad idea and has all sorts of risks), and you should apologise for implying that Drone raped someone who was literally asking for sex.

On November 22 2017 15:54 KwarK wrote:

You need to read it again. They didn't know each other for 7 hours. They literally just met. The 7 hours was how much drinking they did before they met. They've never seen in each in a non trashed context, their sober selves are total strangers.

A retired Alabama police officer told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday that she had to keep an eye on Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in the 1980s at local high school football games because he would regularly harass the team’s teenage cheerleaders.

Faye Gary, who for 37 years was an officer at the Gadsden Police Department, explained to Mitchell that Moore’s reputation for pursuing underage girls was widely known throughout the community.

“We were also told to watch him at the ballgames, and make sure that he didn’t, you know, hang around with the cheerleaders,” said Gary.

Gary also said she learned that Moore had been barred from entering the local shopping mall because he had been “harassing” young women who worked there.

Moore faces multiple allegations that he inappropriately pursued teenage girls when he was in his 30s, including allegations from two women that Moore tried to force them to have sexual contact with him when they were both under the age of consent.

On November 22 2017 15:54 KwarK wrote:

You need to read it again. They didn't know each other for 7 hours. They literally just met. The 7 hours was how much drinking they did before they met. They've never seen in each in a non trashed context, their sober selves are total strangers.

On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:


And, who cares that they didn't know each other before? Its just sex, its not like they are getting married, adopt a child and buy a flat together while drunk.

This discussion doesn't seem to be about consent, it seems to be about (american/anglosaxon) prudery vs "others".

The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I would get raped by a prostitute i paid.

On November 22 2017 17:38 a_flayer wrote:
I think it's the same kind of well-intentioned but poor-in-real-life idea behind 'zero tolerance on guns' at schools, where kids get kicked out of school for making their hands into gun shapes or pretending that sticks are guns. They want to prevent actual gun violence and actual rape, which is fair enough, but then come up with some ludicrous over-the-top standard in an attempt to achieve that. People like KwarK and Plansix seem to buy into that sort of thing a lot.

On November 22 2017 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sex is something intimate and highly personal

On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:
The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I then technically would be raped by the prostitute I just paid.

On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:

A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law.

This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless.

On November 22 2017 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Basically this.

My experience of anglo saxon countries is that the prevalent idea is that sex in something that happens somewhere on the road of the highly codified and ritualized dating process, or you are a shit person. Which is totally terrifying to a frenchman: we don’t even have a word for date in french ( let alone the need for that totally boring and unimaginative way of approaching someone.)

The fact that Kwak is horrified at the idea that one might want spending the night with a stranger or that some love story might start in a chaotic, drunken way is highly comical to me.

Hell, one of my best friends met a guy at 3am in a bailar in Rio, they ended up spending the night together, and they are nowmarried. According to Kwark, the guy is a rapist and they are both shit people.

It’s a pity this puritan heritage makes many people so horribly judgmental and narrow minded.