RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)?

RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwird -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 3:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV If she wasn't old enough to consent, she certainly wasn't old enough to be expected to know the law, or that one day she would need to have her story documented. I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. Do you think that the cognizance of every 14 yr. old is limited to what the law allows? (Yes, that is intentionally the converse to what you are proposing, just so you know how silly it sounds). Either that or you are otherwise severely shortchanging 14 yr. olds.

bounty44 -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 5:52:33 AM)
Vincent and danemora, there is no "fatal flaw" in lte's position. as he's stated, but apparently in need of repeating, hes NOT talking about having sex with the underage girl and since its not illegal to go on a date with one, bringing up the law, or a mother's permission to break the law, doesn't work. a moral disagreement with the mothers permission is beside the point as well. in any event, I think cases are being mingled here. im not totally conversant on the story but moore had interactions/dates/relationships with other teenagers, presumably as a teenager/young man himself, or maybe even as an adult. the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case.

WhoreMods -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 5:59:35 AM)
So grooming an underaged teenager is acceptable so long the kid's mother is cool with it? Can you imagine the shitfit you and your bloods would be throwing if it was an ethnic jihadist type, rather than a republican nominee for a senate seat, using that excuse?

Lucylastic -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 8:46:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 in any event, I think cases are being mingled here. im not totally conversant on the story but moore had interactions/dates/relationships with other teenagers, presumably as a teenager/young man himself, or maybe even as an adult. the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. He was 32 years old at the time of the 14yr olds incident. He was assistant district attorney. the 16, 17, and 18 yr old were dating....one he met while doing a civics class at the high school. Why arent you conversant with the story???? Because its from the Wa Po? Especially if you are going to opine on how a "young man" is asking permission from momma

WhoreMods -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 8:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Especially if you are going to opine on how a "young man" is asking permission from momma "Yeah, shag the child. We can put the hush money towards his university fund."

bounty44 -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:03:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods So grooming an underaged teenager is acceptable so long the kid's mother is cool with it? Can you imagine the shitfit you and your bloods would be throwing if it was an ethnic jihadist type, rather than a republican nominee for a senate seat, using that excuse? you know, I half knew some %*#&% leftist fool, incapable of making a distinction between my critiquing an argument and the morality of the actual behavior being discussed. my approval or disapproval of the behavior is completely beside the point. how many times have you used the phrase "straw man" in the past handful of months? ironically, I considered putting that caveat in my post, but then I thought, no, surely no one is that idiotic to not be able to tell the difference between the two.

WhoreMods -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods So grooming an underaged teenager is acceptable so long the kid's mother is cool with it? Can you imagine the shitfit you and your bloods would be throwing if it was an ethnic jihadist type, rather than a republican nominee for a senate seat, using that excuse? you know, I half knew some %*#&% leftist fool, incapable of making a distinction between my critiquing an argument and the morality of actual behavior being discussed. my approval or disapproval of the behavior is completely beside the point. ironically, I considered putting that caveat in my post, but then I thought, no, surely no one is that idiotic to not be able to tell the difference between the two. More a denial than a rebuttal, that. So you can't demonstrate a difference between the two excuses for pedophilia. Thought so.

Danemora -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:13:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Vincent and danemora, there is no "fatal flaw" in lte's position. as he's stated, but apparently in need of repeating, hes NOT talking about having sex with the underage girl and since its not illegal to go on a date with one, bringing up the law, or a mother's permission to break the law, doesn't work. a moral disagreement with the mothers permission is beside the point as well. in any event, I think cases are being mingled here. im not totally conversant on the story but moore had interactions/dates/relationships with other teenagers, presumably as a teenager/young man himself, or maybe even as an adult. the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. It doesnt bear repeating...it was skeevy as fuck the first time around. Bounty, I truly and honestly expected better of you as a human being with intelligence than to come to Artie's defense like the guy who cleans out the Honeybuckets at the fair. Let Artie dwell in his bullshit without you trying to play his shit spin doctor. Everyone can see what he wrote and we can all have our opinions. No one knows what fucknuts Moore did with those teens on those dates, but if it violated Alabama state law in any way...MOMMY'S PERMISSION DOESNT MAGICALLY MAKE IT LEGAL. Period. End of story. Its a 30 something man trolling the local middle school population for dates...and we've got apologists in this very thread saying its all good? Mommy saying its okay for a grown man to take...say...an 8 year old or a 3 year old out on a date...must be a-okay too, eh? 🙄

heavyblinker -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:27:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Danemora Bounty, I truly and honestly expected better of you as a human being with intelligence than to come to Artie's defense like the guy who cleans out the Honeybuckets at the fair. LOL... why?

vincentML -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:27:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Vincent and danemora, there is no "fatal flaw" in lte's position. as he's stated, but apparently in need of repeating, hes NOT talking about having sex with the underage girl and since its not illegal to go on a date with one, bringing up the law, or a mother's permission to break the law, doesn't work. a moral disagreement with the mothers permission is beside the point as well. in any event, I think cases are being mingled here. im not totally conversant on the story but moore had interactions/dates/relationships with other teenagers, presumably as a teenager/young man himself, or maybe even as an adult. the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. Bounty; I don't see how you can separate permission for a date from permission for sexual abuse. Once the child is out of the mother's presence a new game with new rules has begun and Wiley Coyote is in charge. How much "crack" is needed for a mom to sign over her daughter to a lecher? Moore was in his 30's when these events are alleged to have occurred. It may not be illegal for 30 year old man to go on a date [sm=happy-smiley58.gif] with a fourteen year old child, but even Alabama must have some questionable social optics when viewing the event. I think your argument is absurd. Consider: "you may take nudies of my darling daughter in your private home but you do not have permission to touch her privates." Where is the line of social acceptability drawn in any relationship between a 30 year old man and a child?

Danemora -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:32:36 AM)
Following the logic Artie pulled from his ass and Bounty defended... Its all good if Moore asked Mommy if he could take her 8 year old or toddler out on a date with him. C'mon, y'all...Mommy said its good. Mommy Law trumps State Law. And that, Bounty...is the fatal flaw in Artie's logic.

vincentML -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:34:09 AM)
quote: you know, I half knew some %*#&% leftist fool, incapable of making a distinction between my critiquing an argument and the morality of the actual behavior being discussed. my approval or disapproval of the behavior is completely beside the point. You would be wise to add the caveat. Otherwise you leave yourself wide open. That is just the nature of debate on an unmonitored board where name-calling is taken as debate. Furthermore, Leftists are not the only fools who use such tactics.

Danemora -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:34:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Danemora Bounty, I truly and honestly expected better of you as a human being with intelligence than to come to Artie's defense like the guy who cleans out the Honeybuckets at the fair. LOL... why? Because I hate thinking there are two being on this site competing for Creepy Fucking Asshole, HB. Its killing my faith in humanity 😊

heavyblinker -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:34:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. FFS it has already been established that he was in his 30s, 'dating' 14 year olds. Why is it relevant at all if he dated a teenager when he was also a teenager?

Lucylastic -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:38:05 AM)
You cant discuss something with someone who has no clue to what the story is and refuses to look into it..

vincentML -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. FFS it has already been established that he was in his 30s, 'dating' 14 year olds. Why is it relevant at all if he dated a teenager when he was also a teenager? WTF?

heavyblinker -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV If she wasn't old enough to consent, she certainly wasn't old enough to be expected to know the law, or that one day she would need to have her story documented. I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. Do you think that the cognizance of every 14 yr. old is limited to what the law allows? (Yes, that is intentionally the converse to what you are proposing, just so you know how silly it sounds). Either that or you are otherwise severely shortchanging 14 yr. olds. You can't make assumptions about what a 14 year old knows about the world or the law, as it all depends on the 14 year old in question. But the vast majority of 14 year olds have little to no understanding of the long-term repercussions of certain actions.

heavyblinker -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. FFS it has already been established that he was in his 30s, 'dating' 14 year olds. Why is it relevant at all if he dated a teenager when he was also a teenager? WTF? Isn't that what bounty is going on about here? It seems like he's trying to argue that Moore was also a teenager and therefore these accusations are baseless, liberal propaganda. Basically, he is once again refusing to address established facts... or downplaying them with some weak argument about 'some of the cases'.

Lucylastic -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 9:47:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the point being, his phrase "I never dated a teenager without permission from her mother" needs to be understood in that context. how old was he in reference to that phrase, and what was the legality of each case. FFS it has already been established that he was in his 30s, 'dating' 14 year olds. Why is it relevant at all if he dated a teenager when he was also a teenager? WTF? Isn't that what bounty is going on about here? It seems like he's trying to argue that Moore was also a teenager and therefore these accusations are baseless, liberal propaganda. Basically, he is once again refusing to address established facts... or downplaying them with some weak argument about 'some of the cases'. You cant discuss something with someone who has no clue to what the story is and refuses to look into it..

heavyblinker -> RE: WHY DO WE READILY BELIEVE THE WOMEN (VICTIMS)? (11/12/2017 10:04:19 AM)
It's amazing how humiliation has stopped being a deterrent from proceeding without the proper information, but then again, getting that information would mean venturing outside of the echo chamber comfort zone... which is practically unthinkable. You think townhall is going to give him that info?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875