quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
while what you said is true, it doesn't really address butch's point, which im taking to mean what I bolded above.

its not a matter of whether or not the wallet was stolen in some metaphysical sense, its a matter of how justice is obtained after it has been.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Very good point but . . . . Fatty Arbuckle and Roman Polanski predated Bill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That would be up to the police to decide if there was evidence enough for charges... When others came forward there may very well be enough to take these accusations seriously. I'm sorry I just do not think it justice when the accused is tried in the media. If someone is going to make serious accusations then make a complaint.

Butch

Let's play a game..

Where is your wallet right now? how hard do you think it would be for me to take it from you? However i manage to do it... Maybe you were asleep. Whatever. I don't care.

If I managed to take your wallet, would it only be REAL to you *IF* you reported it. Only if you went to the cops was it really gone.

Whether you go to the cops or not, your wallet is still gone. That police report doesn't change anything. Reporting it or not reporting it doesn't change the fact that your wallet is GONE.

Ten years from now, you'll still talk about it. How to replace your driver's license or your Social Security card. ATM, credit cards, etc.

Did I only steal your wallet *IF* you went to the cops? The wallet is still gone, whether you walk into the police station or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
LadyPact being the true Gentleman that I am i will not be so crass as to comment on my thoughts of you putting your hands in my pants... That said I am no longer going to argue my point because i understand what you and what others have said and believe it to be the reason they may not have made a complaint. But just myself... I would not accuse you in public unless I had made an official complaint... it would not be fair to you... but this is just me.

Butch

Dear Butch,

I just want to take a moment to say that I do appreciate your sense of humor. When we attempt to discuss topics such as this, some levity, at times, can be helpful. Perhaps, we can joke around about what's down your pants when the opportunity presents itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

He wont be tried in a court of law.
Politics is all about public opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince...why then did these women go to the press and not the police?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
while what you said is true, it doesn't really address butch's point, which im taking to mean what I bolded above.

its not a matter of whether or not the wallet was stolen in some metaphysical sense, its a matter of how justice is obtained after it has been.

In my personal opinion, there's not going to be "justice" in a lot of these situations. They probably won't ever serve a day behind bars, and frankly, that's where I think some of them belong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

an interesting thing to consider is that "justice" is probably more of a process than it is a particular outcome.

quote:

WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

an interesting thing to consider is that "justice" is probably more of a process than it is a particular outcome.

I believe this happens, every day and we never hear about it, but there are other instances which just stink like a Staten Island Garbage dump.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are cases where person A accuses person B of some kind of rape/molestation/sexual misconduct; accuses them by going to the police.

It turns out person B was absolutely incapable of committing the act (usually by means of geography. That's pretty absolute). The police or prosecutor's investigators drop the investigation. Done deal (I still think the accuser should face some charges if the accusation was an intentional act of defamation).

The trouble is, we have these "Statutes of Limitations" which for specifically political, but general defamation purposes, are VERY convenient.

Person A waits (knowingly) until the SoL has run out and then, decides it's time to damage person B. There's no penalty for them.

I can't remember a name, but it was within the last few years ... a congressman was making payments to a young man to "keep him quite". The act of making payments to cover his ass negated the SoL, because the crime never stopped "happening", based upon the overt act of blackmail payments. Someone might be able to help me with the name?

What I would like to see happen, specifically in the Moore case is for Moore to lose and then DEMAND that this lady prove her accusations. Criminally, civilly, whatever. Prove it or face some kind of "penalty".



Peace,


Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its a fair question but I don't think the distinction between the two groups is really that stark. that is, there are instant believers, skeptics and deniers/apologists on both sides.

i hope as a meaningful aside---I have problems with the overly broad use of the word "pedophilia" when its used, wrongly, in reference to relationships with females who are post pubescent or that don't take into account issues of exclusivity.

quote:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2]...

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[5][6] This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[7][8] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse are sometimes pedophiles,[6][9] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,[7][10][11] and some pedophiles do not molest children.[12]...

Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11- to 14-year-old pubescents.[23] The DSM-5 does not list hebephilia among the diagnoses; while evidence suggests that hebephilia is separate from pedophilia, the ICD-10 includes early pubertal age (an aspect of hebephilia) in its pedophilia definition, covering the physical development overlap between the two philias.[24] In addition to hebephilia, some clinicians have proposed other categories that are somewhat or completely distinguished from pedophilia; these include pedohebephilia (a combination of pedophilia and hebephilia) and ephebophilia (though ephebophilia is not considered pathological).[25][26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

quote:

I mean democrats/liberals and Hollywood moguls are always the scum of the earth because yes...it's politically correct.

Repub/right politicians become the victims themselves, of hate and fake news.

When everybody should know that the most successful sexual predators are found in the Catholic church. Few if any were ever jailed, the church not the perps. paid fines and most all but the few who didn't retire/resign...were just transfered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince...why then did these women go to the press and not the police?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That would be up to the police to decide if there was evidence enough for charges... When others came forward there may very well be enough to take these accusations seriously. I'm sorry I just do not think it justice when the accused is tried in the media. If someone is going to make serious accusations then make a complaint.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

monumental

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

when they accuse entertainers of sexual misconduct (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K.)

BUT we strain and rail against the VICTIMS when politicians are accused (Roy Moore, Donald Trump)? She's a lyin' bitch. Why'd she wait so long? etc.

Why do we so knowingly accept accusations against entertainers (uh huh, what I thought) but we flat out don’t believe the accusations against our politicians?

Why do we accept one of the accused groups automatically as scum but the other as innocent victims of lying, weaseling women?

Is there a moral difference between political paedophilia and show biz paedophilia?

What do you think?

Dear Vincent;

If your intent was to question the veracity of some of these accusations by alleged victims, then why did your thread title make it about women?

Or if the point was about entertainers vs. politicians; again, why the title?

In any case, both sectors (politicians and entertainers) rely on popularity to make a living, and as far as I've seen through the years I haven't seen one favored to the other by the media, except that both sides of politicians are more hypocritical in every regard. But even that pandering (by hypocritical politicians) is on warped sense of societal mores, which the media exploit and pervert to own purpose, in either realm. In my estimation, the media are even more responsible than politicians for the downturn experienced today.

The media patronize and pander at least as much as any politician. Today's sitcoms, today's "news," today's presentation of the latest bizarre event, hour after hour, week after week, splashing it up for all it's worth in every case . . . but then all the 'thoughtful' or not so thoughtful "concern" about the nation and the world, etc. on the 'political' shows (oh, barf ...).

BTW, one out of 50 million of the politico reporters gets a Pulitzer for making us feel bad that we actually took the rest of the media at their word for ten years, but TMZ pops up yesterday and makes tons more money than the Washington Post last year, so that's where that is.

So, yeah, that's how to keep people level-headed and even-keeled before they make world-changing decisions as voters, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

monumental

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

when they accuse entertainers of sexual misconduct (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K.)

BUT we strain and rail against the VICTIMS when politicians are accused (Roy Moore, Donald Trump)? She's a lyin' bitch. Why'd she wait so long? etc.

Why do we so knowingly accept accusations against entertainers (uh huh, what I thought) but we flat out don’t believe the accusations against our politicians?

Why do we accept one of the accused groups automatically as scum but the other as innocent victims of lying, weaseling women?

Is there a moral difference between political paedophilia and show biz paedophilia?

What do you think?

Dear Vincent;

If your intent was to question the veracity of some of these accusations by alleged victims, then why did your thread title make it about women?

Or if the point was about entertainers vs. politicians; again, why the title?

In any case, both sectors (politicians and entertainers) rely on popularity to make a living, and as far as I've seen through the years I haven't seen one favored to the other by the media, except that both sides of politicians are more hypocritical in every regard. But even that pandering (by hypocritical politicians) is on warped sense of societal mores, which the media exploit and pervert to own purpose, in either realm. In my estimation, the media are even more responsible than politicians for the downturn experienced today.

The media patronize and pander at least as much as any politician. Today's sitcoms, today's "news," today's presentation of the latest bizarre event, hour after hour, week after week, splashing it up for all it's worth in every case . . . but then all the 'thoughtful' or not so thoughtful "concern" about the nation and the world, etc. on the 'political' shows (oh, barf ...).

BTW, one out of 50 million of the politico reporters gets a Pulitzer for making us feel bad that we actually took the rest of the media at their word for ten years, but TMZ pops up yesterday and makes tons more money than the Washington Post last year, so that's where that is.

So, yeah, that's how to keep people level-headed and even-keeled before they make world-changing decisions as voters, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

I think that watching the second presidential debate I witnessed (I don't even remember who v. whom) made me think that the world was completely wacko, because after the great and relentless efforts to dumb us down for the advertisers (just the TV networks doing their job), we were now expected to take them seriously. You know, just this once.