|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 07 2017 07:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 07:37 IyMoon wrote:On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. Are you just trying to point to anything to save your argument? Also, the accusation of child molester is because of the whole touching a 14 year old thing while being 30+ being married to something 24 years older than you is not weird if you are of an old enough age. 30 year old and a 54 year old is not creepy. 14 year old and 38 year old is really fucking creepy. IMO 30 and 54 is still creepy/ weird, but okay at least the two are consenting adults. A generational gap is just a little much.
They were a couple when he was 18, but didn’t remain one. It was far from normal, but not his only relationship. And he dated her again years later. Also, that age gap is the same as Trump and his wife.
|
|
|
None of you are following my argument.
|
On December 07 2017 07:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 07:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 07:37 IyMoon wrote:On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. Are you just trying to point to anything to save your argument? Also, the accusation of child molester is because of the whole touching a 14 year old thing while being 30+ being married to something 24 years older than you is not weird if you are of an old enough age. 30 year old and a 54 year old is not creepy. 14 year old and 38 year old is really fucking creepy. IMO 30 and 54 is still creepy/ weird, but okay at least the two are consenting adults. A generational gap is just a little much. They were a couple when he was 18, but didn’t remain one. It was far from normal, but not his only relationship. And he dated her again years later. Also, that age gap is the same as Trump and his wife.
The 30/54 situation is maybe slightly weird, but only in the sense that it makes you go "Huh. Weird. Well there has to be some reason for it. Okay.", while 14/38 is straight out "What the fuck is going on? That older person is creepy as fuck!" The acceptable age gap increases with age, and the creepiness quickly declines once both people are adults who have some life experience (Like living on their own, paying their own bills etc...)
The years aren't the fundamentally important thing, the different stage of life is the problem. In my opinion, a teenager in school living with his/her parents can never be an equal partner to a person in the middle of their career with some experience of living as an adult. That makes the whole situation really lopsided and creepy.
On December 07 2017 08:01 mozoku wrote:
None of you are following my argument.
If no one is following your argument, maybe you need to state your argument in a way that makes it easier to follow?
|
On December 07 2017 08:01 mozoku wrote:
None of you are following my argument.
You may want to open yourself to the possibility that your argument is terrible and you don't know anything about the EU(which is a lot of countries, not one country).
|
|
|
Mozoku are you arguing that the Europeans who are saying that Moore and the 14 year old is paedophilia are hypocrites, or Moore and the 16+ year olds? Also, just so you know, age of consent in the U.K. is 16.
|
On December 07 2017 06:05 Danglars wrote:
"We won't actually end the world. And with our approach to education, we aren't likely to figure out how to in the next 4 years! #GOP2020"
The bar has discovered, thanks to the incredible efforts of the Republican senate in rapidly lowering it, how to travel faster than the speed of light. Congratulations. How is the fact that the tax plan is awful on a number of levels and was battering-rammed through the senate with illegible hand-writing and no time for review (in a blatant assault on basic principles of democracy, transparency and representation) at all mitigated by the continued existence of life on Earth. Are you saying a total disregard for a political process adhered to for obvious reasons is somehow not a big deal?
I don't even get this. What's the game here? Deliberate normalization of kleptocratic BS? Seriously, what?
|
On December 07 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:
Supporting Israel seemed like such a good idea back when they were fighting off every nation around them. In recent years it has gotten less easy, if not impossible.
I just wanted to highlight my favorite post that sums up my feelings about the entire Isreal palestine debate. Shoutout to Kwarks irish joke.
|
On December 07 2017 08:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 08:01 mozoku wrote:
None of you are following my argument. If no one is following your argument, maybe you need to state your argument in a way that makes it easier to follow?
Or maybe the issue is reading comprehension:
On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:
The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability).
It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted.
The argument is about hypocrisy, which apparently all of you except Kollin missed.
I've repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that I consider Moore's actions to be repulsive. If you consider Moore's actions to be pedophiliac (I certainly would agree to something along those lines), you need to explain why you've never had an issue with pedophilia being legal in several of the largest countries in Europe.
Kollin: You could argue that people who live in countries where the age of consent 16+ aren't being hypocritical, but I have my doubts that the accusations of pedophilia would be revoked if the 14 year old never brought up her case. To directly answer your question, I use the rough definition below on italics. If I had to pick a number, it'd be at least 18 or higher if there's a significant age gap, but some people mature faster or slower than others.
Also, Macron and his wife started dating before he was 17 according to Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with a a 24-year age gap assuming both parties are consenting, fully-developed adults. I have my doubts whether that was true when Macron was 16, but it seems that it fortunately led to no harms in his case.
Though this changes nothing in my opinion, I thought I'd mention for the record that I learned today that the age of consent in Alabama is 16.
|
The reason 'pedophilia is legal' in SOME countries in the EU is usually, as Drone said, with provisions - the age difference can't be too big or whatever they because they have judged that the harm caused by criminalising sex for young people (which increases teenage pregnancy, and I'd imagine has a big impact on mental health) is too great. Furthermore, in the countries where this is not the case, I can't imagine too many of the 14-year old bangers generally seek public office.
|
On December 07 2017 08:34 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 08:05 Simberto wrote:On December 07 2017 08:01 mozoku wrote:
None of you are following my argument. If no one is following your argument, maybe you need to state your argument in a way that makes it easier to follow? Or maybe the issue is reading comprehension: Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:
The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability).
It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. The argument is about hypocrisy, which apparently all of you except Kollin missed. I've repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that I consider Moore's actions to be repulsive. If you consider Moore's actions to be pedophiliac (I certainly would agree to something along those lines), you need to explain why you've never had an issue with pedophilia being legal in several of the largest countries in Europe. Kollin: You could argue that people who live in countries where the age of consent 16+ aren't being hypocritical, but I have my doubts that the accusations of pedophilia would be revoked if the 14 year old never brought up her case. To directly answer your question, I use the rough definition below on italics. If I had to pick a number, it'd be at least 18 or higher if there's a significant age gap, but some people mature faster or slower than others. Also, Macron and his wife started dating before he was 17 according to Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with a a 24-year age gap assuming both parties are consenting, fully-developed adults. I have my doubts whether that was true when Macron was 16, but it seems that it fortunately led to no harms in his case. Though this changes nothing in my opinion, I thought I'd mention for the record that I learned today that the age of consent in Alabama is 16.
Because legal doesn't mean socially acceptable. And that matters when your running for public office.
And there are often provisions, for example in the Netherlands the age of consent is 16 yes, but unequal relationships are a big no go. And considering the entire town knew he stalked under aged girls everywhere any concept of 'love' would be hilarious.
And considering they all came forward the concept of 'consensual' might be stretched a little in you want to apply it.
I can excuse the French since it appears to be a case of actual love interest between 2 people. And not a creep that got banned from a mall and had police instructed to watch him.
|
On December 07 2017 08:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 08:34 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 08:05 Simberto wrote:On December 07 2017 08:01 mozoku wrote:
None of you are following my argument. If no one is following your argument, maybe you need to state your argument in a way that makes it easier to follow? Or maybe the issue is reading comprehension: On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:
The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability).
It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. The argument is about hypocrisy, which apparently all of you except Kollin missed. I've repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that I consider Moore's actions to be repulsive. If you consider Moore's actions to be pedophiliac (I certainly would agree to something along those lines), you need to explain why you've never had an issue with pedophilia being legal in several of the largest countries in Europe. Kollin: You could argue that people who live in countries where the age of consent 16+ aren't being hypocritical, but I have my doubts that the accusations of pedophilia would be revoked if the 14 year old never brought up her case. To directly answer your question, I use the rough definition below on italics. If I had to pick a number, it'd be at least 18 or higher if there's a significant age gap, but some people mature faster or slower than others. Also, Macron and his wife started dating before he was 17 according to Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with a a 24-year age gap assuming both parties are consenting, fully-developed adults. I have my doubts whether that was true when Macron was 16, but it seems that it fortunately led to no harms in his case. Though this changes nothing in my opinion, I thought I'd mention for the record that I learned today that the age of consent in Alabama is 16. Because legal doesn't mean socially acceptable. And that matters when your running for public office. And there are often provisions, for example in the Netherlands the age of consent is 16 yes, but unequal relationships are a big no go. And considering the entire town knew he stalked under aged girls everywhere any concept of 'love' would be hilarious. And considering they all came forward the concept of 'consensual' might be stretched a little in you want to apply it. I can excuse the French since it appears to be a case of actual love interest between 2 people. And not a creep that got banned from a mall and had police instructed to watch him.
People always go on about age of consent while ignoring it is a legal minimum. I can sexually harass women, cheat on my wife, kill my cat, lie to my mother, not do my homework and sacrifice local wildlife to satan and I guess most of it is legal. That is because laws are typically designed to avoid overcriminalization.
|
|
|
Sure thing Paul. To bad you can't do that with just 50 votes you useless turdblossom.
|
Surely "pedophilia" (really ephebophilia) is a serious enough moral violation that the greater portion of the concern should be primarily on the victim's side rather than the perpertrator's side? It's a strangely inconsistent viewpoint for a liberal's/progressive's primary legal area of concern in the case of sex offenses to be preventing "overcriminalization" of offenders, no?
For better or for worse, the "trial" process of the #metoo campaign has implied a very different value, and that value has also been consistently defended in this thread by liberal posters (for the record, I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong for doing so).
|
The smart political thing would've been to wait to announce this until AFTER he passed his tax bill lol
|
On December 07 2017 09:33 Nevuk wrote:The smart political thing would've been to wait to announce this until AFTER he passed his tax bill lol
Why? They know they are going to pass that peice of garbage and then watch the donation roll in.
|
On December 07 2017 09:30 mozoku wrote:
Surely "pedophilia" (really ephebophilia) is a serious enough moral violation that the greater portion of the concern should be primarily on the victim's side rather than the perpertrator's side? It's a strangely inconsistent viewpoint for a liberal's/progressive's primary legal area of concern in the case of sex offenses to be preventing "overcriminalization" of offenders, no?
For better or for worse, the "trial" process of the #metoo campaign has implied a very different value, and that value has also been consistently defended in this thread by liberal posters (for the record, I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong for doing so).
You are misunderstanding the point about overcriminalisation that is being made. People aren't worried about overcriminalising actual predators, but rather criminalising two, consenting (for example) 15 year olds, because the result of such a policy is increased teenage pregnancy etc etc
Also, i had to google ephebophilia, and Wikipedia says it's an interest in teenagers aged 15-19. The youngest allegation came from a 14 year old, so....
|
A good thing, but I'm not sure if it comes from his convictions or his stupidity. They better be slick in the PR here, if Nancy Pelosi thinks that tax changes are Armageddon, wait until she goes around lying to seniors that their benefits will be cut.
There have been rumors like this circulating for weeks, and Trump has mentioned it as well, but I wasn't sure it was real. I thought they were going to try healthcare again or go for infrastructure, although since everyone is now crowing about debt perhaps they can't rationalize over a trillion for that right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
