"Me Too" Judge Roy Moore

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women are actually against pedophilia!

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women don't know what "pedophilia" means any more than Uderseer...

How do you know Moore does not have attraction to prepubescent children given his weirdness and his ruling in favor of the guy who raped a 4 yr old? I mean there's no law of nature that says he can't like both 14 yr olds and 9 yr olds. I'm not saying I can prove it but when was the last time you heard of a non-pedo being rapey with a 14 yr old and then ruling in favor of a guy who raped a 4 yr old?

 

[Patooka]

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women are actually against pedophilia!

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women don't know what "pedophilia" means any more than Uderseer...

If you going to engage in pedantry, go all the way and spell names correctly.

And that is the best example of irony I've seen this month

Wow. Derec defending a child molester! I'm shocked.

The child molester is not black, not a muslim, and not a woman. So why the shock?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Looks like O'Keefe is busy trying to smear main stream media sources on Moore's behalf. This guy is so sleazy.

 

[Elixir]

Looks like O'Keefe is busy trying to smear main stream media sources on Moore's behalf. This guy is so sleazy.

Nothing is too slimy or too low for these "very fine people".

 

[RavenSky]

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women are actually against pedophilia!

Well what do you know? It turns out that some Republican women don't know what "pedophilia" means any more than Uderseer...

How do you know Moore does not have attraction to prepubescent children given his weirdness and his ruling in favor of the guy who raped a 4 yr old? I mean there's no law of nature that says he can't like both 14 yr olds and 9 yr olds. I'm not saying I can prove it but when was the last time you heard of a non-pedo being rapey with a 14 yr old and then ruling in favor of a guy who raped a 4 yr old?

excellent point.

I wonder what is on his computer

 

[Underseer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...cbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.2474ec687696

So The ironically named Project Veritas pulled one of their usual scams. This time, the target was the Washington Post.

They sent a female conservative operative to pose as an adult victim of Roy Moore to the Washington Post. She claimed that Roy Moore gathered a child with her when she was underage. The Post reporter checked her story out and decided it didn't sound legit, so they didn't publish her story.

I can only assume that their plan was to wait for them to punish the story, then reveal that the story was fake so that they could then say "Ah ha! Biased liberal media! They lie to you! Therefore, we don't lie to you!!!" (Note the tu quoque fallacy inherent in the argument, but whatever.)

What is relevant here is not the logical fallacy they would likely have used, not is it the fact that they once again used psy-ops style techniques to inject lies into the public discourse. What is important is that they lied in defense of a pedophile.

They are willing to lie and chest and pervert the public discourse on which democracy is dependent in order to defend a pedophile.

The Republican party is now the party of pedophilia. They own this.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Aha! So, once again the lying librul media has proven that they only publish the stories which fit their biased agenda of being "factual" and "able to be verified".

They're kind of like the Nazis.

 

[Bronzeage]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...cbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.2474ec687696

So The ironically named Project Veritas pulled one of their usual scams. This time, the target was the Washington Post.

They sent a female conservative operative to pose as an adult victim of Roy Moore to the Washington Post. She claimed that Roy Moore gathered a child with her when she was underage. The Post reporter checked her story out and decided it didn't sound legit, so they didn't publish her story.

I can only assume that their plan was to wait for them to punish the story, then reveal that the story was fake so that they could then say "Ah ha! Biased liberal media! They lie to you! Therefore, we don't lie to you!!!" (Note the tu quoque fallacy inherent in the argument, but whatever.)

What is relevant here is not the logical fallacy they would likely have used, not is it the fact that they once again used psy-ops style techniques to inject lies into the public discourse. What is important is that they lied in defense of a pedophile.

They are willing to lie and chest and pervert the public discourse on which democracy is dependent in order to defend a pedophile.

The Republican party is now the party of pedophilia. They own this.

View attachment 13321

The Trojan Horse was a great idea, but it only worked once. In the thousands of years after that, anytime a big wooden horse was found outside the gate, everybody just shook their heads and said, "Do they think we're that stupid?"

Ever since O'Keefe and his group torpedoed ACORN, every other liberal minded organization was put on notice. Beware of geeks bearing gifts. I'm sure every major newspaper in the country has told their reporters to be especially suspicious of anyone who just appears and has the juiciest story of the day.

There's a line from LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, "Topicality is always suspicious."

The only surprise in this is they didn't run the same scam on the New York times, at the same time.

 

[repoman]

 

[repoman]

Because there are so many candidates for this special election this looks to favor Roy Moore. A head on with Jones only would likely see Moore lose.

But will Mac Watson peel votes from Moore?

 

[funinspace]

Just wow...to this defense of this creep; ok, so Roy wasn't able to molest the majority of under age females in Alabama in his molesting days. And I guess Twitter is beginning to have fun with such a notion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...ng-2017-12-05?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

‘We need to make it clear, there’s a group of non-accusers, that have not accused the judge of anything illegal.’ - Jane Porter

Yes, Roy Moore’s spokeswoman actually told that to CNN’s Poppy Harlow Tuesday while discussing the multiple allegations against the Republican senator.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just wow...to this defense of this creep; ok, so Roy wasn't able to molest the majority of under age females in Alabama in his molesting days. And I guess Twitter is beginning to have fun with such a notion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...ng-2017-12-05?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

‘We need to make it clear, there’s a group of non-accusers, that have not accused the judge of anything illegal.’ - Jane Porter

Yes, Roy Moore’s spokeswoman actually told that to CNN’s Poppy Harlow Tuesday while discussing the multiple allegations against the Republican senator.

Your Honor: I think now would be a good time to talk about all the people my client didn't murder...

 

[funinspace]

Couldn't resist posting this bit of humor...

https://heisenbergreport.com/2017/1...t-steve-bannons-egregious-roy-moore-rally-ok/

It was karaoke night at a Fairhope, Alabama dive bar on Tuesday, which presumably explains why a bleary-eyed, disheveled homeless man was allowed to get up on stage and ramble about establishment conspiracy theories.



I’m just kidding. That is of course former White House chief strategist, failed Hollywood screenwriter, and former Goldman banker pretending to care about the Middle Class, Steve Bannon.

Bannon showed up at a rally for Senate hopeful and alleged child predator Roy Moore last night, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Breitbart chief understands that abandoning Moore at this juncture simply isn’t an option.

 

[Underseer]

Just wow...to this defense of this creep; ok, so Roy wasn't able to molest the majority of under age females in Alabama in his molesting days. And I guess Twitter is beginning to have fun with such a notion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...ng-2017-12-05?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

‘We need to make it clear, there’s a group of non-accusers, that have not accused the judge of anything illegal.’ - Jane Porter

Yes, Roy Moore’s spokeswoman actually told that to CNN’s Poppy Harlow Tuesday while discussing the multiple allegations against the Republican senator.

According to this logic, Mohammed and all those Catholic priests weren't pedophiles either. They didn't molest all children, therefore they are innocent of pedophilia.

 

[Underseer]

Time named the #MeToo movement persons of the year. Conservolibertarian snowflakes have reacted to this exactly the way one would expect: like tantrum-throwing toddlers.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/wo...me-honors-silence-breakers-who-spawned-metoo/

 

[Jokodo]

I agree. Sounds credible. Also, the others were young when he went after them:

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.983eb655644a

He gave the 18 year old wine when legal drinking limit was 19. Not terrible but he was trying to get her drunk so she couldn't think straight...

Where I live, it's legal to drink wine with 16.

This is really awkward, but I'm kind of with Derec here. Not entirely, but to some extent. If you know me, you know that's unheard of in itself.

Intimidating a 14-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is bad and should be illegal. But on the other hand, intimidating a 32-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is also bad. The first scenario should be illegal because she doesn't want it (and because a 32-year-old man can be expected to tell), not because she's 14 years old. It's probably true that the average 14-year-old is more easily intimidated than the average 32-year-old, but even that's not so relevant. The first scenario is still bad because he intimidated her, not because of her age. There are 14 or 15-year-olds, and many 17-year-olds, who know what they want - and what they want is fuck a 22-, 27-, or in some cases a 32-year-old, and treating that the same as cases of intimidation or outright physical coercion (as implied by the use of the term "statutary rape" even in jurisdictions where, among adults, it doesn't count as "rape" if no physical force was exerted) doesn't serve anyone, and least of all the younger partners.

It does sometimes perplex me how Americans (especially) seem to confuse their arbitrary local laws with universal morals.

ETA: Where I live, the age of consent is generally 14, but with a loophole for the state attorney: If the younger partner is under 16 and it can be argued that the younger partner was, her age notwithstanding, of insufficient maturity to understand what they were doing, the case can be treated as if she (or he, for that matter) were 13 rather than, say, 15. I believe that's a fairly reasonable compromise.

 

[RavenSky]

I agree. Sounds credible. Also, the others were young when he went after them:

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.983eb655644a

He gave the 18 year old wine when legal drinking limit was 19. Not terrible but he was trying to get her drunk so she couldn't think straight...

Where I live, it's legal to drink wine with 16.

This is really awkward, but I'm kind of with Derec here. Not entirely, but to some extent. If you know me, you know that's unheard of in itself.

Intimidating a 14-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is bad and should be illegal. But on the other hand, intimidating a 32-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is also bad. The first scenario should be illegal because she doesn't want it (and because a 32-year-old man can be expected to tell), not because she's 14 years old. It's probably true that the average 14-year-old is more easily intimidated than the average 32-year-old, but even that's not so relevant. The first scenario is still bad because he intimidated her, not because of her age. There are 14 or 15-year-olds, and many 17-year-olds, who know what they want - and what they want is fuck a 22-, 27-, or in some cases a 32-year-old, and treating that the same as cases of intimidation or outright physical coercion (as implied by the use of the term "statutary rape" even in jurisdictions where, among adults, it doesn't count as "rape" if no physical force was exerted) doesn't serve anyone, and least of all the younger partners.

It does sometimes perplex me how Americans (especially) seem to confuse their arbitrary local laws with universal morals.

ETA: Where I live, the age of consent is generally 14, but with a loophole for the state attorney: If the younger partner is under 16 and it can be argued that the younger partner was, her age notwithstanding, of insufficient maturity to understand what they were doing, the case can be treated as if she (or he, for that matter) were 13 rather than, say, 15. I believe that's a fairly reasonable compromise.

I disagree

The minimum marriage age in most states is 18, but every state allows exceptions under which children under age 18 can wed.

The first common exception is for children marrying with “parental consent.” Most states allow children age 16 or 17 to marry if their parents sign the marriage license application.

Of course, one person’s “parental consent” can be another’s “parental coercion,” but state laws typically do not call for anyone to investigate whether a child is marrying willingly. Even in the case of a girl’s sobbing openly while her parents sign the application and force her into marriage, the clerk usually has no authority to intervene. In fact, in most states there are no laws that specifically forbid forced marriage.

The second common marriage-age exception is for children marrying with judicial approval. This exception lowers the marriage age below 16 in many states, and many states do not specify a minimum age. Judges in those states can allow the marriage even of an elementary school student.

But judges would never do that, right?

wrong

Forced marriage is a widespread but often ignored problem in the United States. A survey by the Tahirih Justice Center, an NGO that provides services to immigrant women and girls, identified as many as 3,000 known or suspected forced-marriage cases just between 2009 and 2011, many involving girls under age 18. Tactics used against the victims included threats of ostracism, beatings or death.

The dangers of child marriage are, after all, very clear: A recent report found that child marriage “undermines girls’ health, education and economic opportunities, and increases their risk of experiencing violence.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html

A 13-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal injuries four days after a family-arranged marriage to a man almost twice her age, a human rights group said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html

Now that is forced marriage, but the issues are essentially the same.

There really disgusting part is that this sort of behavior on the part of the men almost always involves a fundamentalist religion - such as Roy Moore practices.

I think that statutory rape laws should be strengthened, not weakened; and should be uniform across the country. No exceptions for parental consent, judicial consent, religious consent... nothing. And I think that the age should be - at minimum - 18 years old. Perhaps even 21.

That said, I also think there should be a so-called Romeo-Juliet provision wherein if the couple's ages are within 5 years of each other, statutory rape laws do not apply. This means that a guy up to the age of 23 is not going to be in trouble for dating/fucking a girl aged 18, or even a 20-year-old screwing a girl who is 15. Hormones are raging and neither of them are really mature enough to make the best decisions. The older of the two should not be criminalized for that.

Once someone has reached the age of majority, they can date, marry, fuck someone 80 years their senior for all I care. But young people do not mature emotionally until their mid-to-late 20's. Even a young 20-something is potential prey for these sexual predators like Roy Moore. But since we have to draw a reasonable line somewhere, it should be at the age where we (in the U.S.) seem to think young people are mature enough to do other things - vote, drink, enter into contracts, etc. Before that, no one twice or thrice their age needs to be looking at them as a sexual partner.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree. Sounds credible. Also, the others were young when he went after them:

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.983eb655644a

He gave the 18 year old wine when legal drinking limit was 19. Not terrible but he was trying to get her drunk so she couldn't think straight...

Where I live, it's legal to drink wine with 16.

This is really awkward, but I'm kind of with Derec here. Not entirely, but to some extent. If you know me, you know that's unheard of in itself.

Intimidating a 14-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is bad and should be illegal. But on the other hand, intimidating a 32-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is also bad. The first scenario should be illegal because she doesn't want it (and because a 32-year-old man can be expected to tell), not because she's 14 years old. It's probably true that the average 14-year-old is more easily intimidated than the average 32-year-old, but even that's not so relevant. The first scenario is still bad because he intimidated her, not because of her age. There are 14 or 15-year-olds, and many 17-year-olds, who know what they want - and what they want is fuck a 22-, 27-, or in some cases a 32-year-old, and treating that the same as cases of intimidation or outright physical coercion (as implied by the use of the term "statutary rape" even in jurisdictions where, among adults, it doesn't count as "rape" if no physical force was exerted) doesn't serve anyone, and least of all the younger partners.

It does sometimes perplex me how Americans (especially) seem to confuse their arbitrary local laws with universal morals.

ETA: Where I live, the age of consent is generally 14, but with a loophole for the state attorney: If the younger partner is under 16 and it can be argued that the younger partner was, her age notwithstanding, of insufficient maturity to understand what they were doing, the case can be treated as if she (or he, for that matter) were 13 rather than, say, 15. I believe that's a fairly reasonable compromise.

The stressed part of my commentary (but I did not bold it or anything) was the second part. So when I wrote:

He gave the 18 year old wine when legal drinking limit was 19. Not terrible but he was trying to get her drunk so she couldn't think straight...

I did not think giving an 18 year old wine in and of itself is terrible. It's pretty minor. I mean, as a parent I could imagine myself asking my son if he would want a glass of wine on a holiday with a family dinner, if he was into wine, even if the drinking age were 21. The part I wanted to focus on is that he was trying to get someone young and inexperienced (naive) drunk to lower her inhibitions and/or non-consensually Bill Cosby her or somewhere in between. In the context of what he did to do the 14 year old, that sounds likely that this was a predatory action. In any case, the nuance shouldn't be missed and it should not merely be called, "oh she was an adult" because there's something more to it in the "but he was trying to get her drunk so she couldn't think straight..." part.

ETA: For the rest about age of consent and so forth, I don't want to agree or disagree necessarily but instead say that something else is going on that your view about freedom which in theory could be a thing, but in this case doesn't really seem to be. So, for example, take a look at this thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...e-in-2011-says-women-shouldn’t-run-for-office

Moore seems to be a part of a culture that is about keeping females subservient, not so much about being sexually free.

 

[Jokodo]

Where I live, it's legal to drink wine with 16.

This is really awkward, but I'm kind of with Derec here. Not entirely, but to some extent. If you know me, you know that's unheard of in itself.

Intimidating a 14-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is bad and should be illegal. But on the other hand, intimidating a 32-year-old to put her hand on your boner when all she really wants is to get away is also bad. The first scenario should be illegal because she doesn't want it (and because a 32-year-old man can be expected to tell), not because she's 14 years old. It's probably true that the average 14-year-old is more easily intimidated than the average 32-year-old, but even that's not so relevant. The first scenario is still bad because he intimidated her, not because of her age. There are 14 or 15-year-olds, and many 17-year-olds, who know what they want - and what they want is fuck a 22-, 27-, or in some cases a 32-year-old, and treating that the same as cases of intimidation or outright physical coercion (as implied by the use of the term "statutary rape" even in jurisdictions where, among adults, it doesn't count as "rape" if no physical force was exerted) doesn't serve anyone, and least of all the younger partners.

It does sometimes perplex me how Americans (especially) seem to confuse their arbitrary local laws with universal morals.

ETA: Where I live, the age of consent is generally 14, but with a loophole for the state attorney: If the younger partner is under 16 and it can be argued that the younger partner was, her age notwithstanding, of insufficient maturity to understand what they were doing, the case can be treated as if she (or he, for that matter) were 13 rather than, say, 15. I believe that's a fairly reasonable compromise.

I disagree

The minimum marriage age in most states is 18, but every state allows exceptions under which children under age 18 can wed.(...)

I'm sorry, but you're changing the topic here. I fully agree that it's troublesome to allow judges to grant exceptions such that arbitrarily young girls can be married - and it's particularly absurd when combined with a high age of consent, such that a casual hook-up between the same to people the judge can grant a marriage license would be considered statutory rape. But this doesn't really speak to the question of whether an age of consent of 18 is reasonable. The potential harm coming from a 17-year-old or even a 15-year-old voluntarily hooking up with a 27-year-old she (or he) finds hot is immensely lower than the potential harm from a 15-year-old or 17-year-old making herself dependent on a 27-year-old with no easy way out (especially if divorce is considered out of the question for religious reasons, as may often be the case in these scenarios). Unless you live in a puritan culture where sex out of wedlock is considered a bad thing in and of itself, there's nothing inconsistent about arguing for a lower age of consent or more exceptions while also arguing for a strengthening of the age limits for marriage.

I think that statutory rape laws should be strengthened, not weakened; and should be uniform across the country. No exceptions for parental consent, judicial consent, religious consent... nothing. And I think that the age should be - at minimum - 18 years old. Perhaps even 21.

That said, I also think there should be a so-called Romeo-Juliet provision wherein if the couple's ages are within 5 years of each other, statutory rape laws do not apply.

So a 17-year-old hooking up with a 22-year-old is good but a 17-year-old hooking up with a 24-year-old (and "perhaps" even a 20-year-old hooking up with a 27-year-old) is a heinous crime at the hands of the older partner, irrespective of who initiated the thing in either case and how willing the other partner was? Such a legislation seems to miss the whole point of why we want there to be a law in the first place. The automatic assumption, independent of the specifics of the case, that a 24-year-old hooking up with a 17-year-old is a predator (and implicitly also making the assumption that everything is necessarily fine when the same 24-year-old hooks up with a 20-year-old) is a very poor proxy even when used solely as a heuristic tool. When cast in law and used to punish the older partner irrespective of what actually happened, that's just plain cruel.

I'm all for making life hell for sexual predators going after young girls. But what makes it a punishable offense should be the predatory behaviour, not the age of the girl. Also, there's this: how are we going to teach young people that no means no and yes means fucking yes while our actions tell them that their yes means jack shit up to the age of 18 or perhaps even 21?

Once someone has reached the age of majority, they can date, marry, fuck someone 80 years their senior for all I care. But young people do not mature emotionally until their mid-to-late 20's. Even a young 20-something is potential prey for these sexual predators like Roy Moore. But since we have to draw a reasonable line somewhere, it should be at the age where we (in the U.S.) seem to think young people are mature enough to do other things - vote, drink, enter into contracts, etc. Before that, no one twice or thrice their age needs to be looking at them as a sexual partner.

Although I see no logical reason why those age limits should be tied to each other, as it happens, the age for voting and drinking also is 16 here (for driving a car, on the other hand, it's 17 - and why not tie it to driving anyway, if you already want to tie it to other age limits? Driving seems to require higher responsibility than any of the other actions if only because of its potential to harm others!). If I were to pick which age limit should be raised: drinking, voting, or being allowed to have sex with whoever you find hot without checking each other's ID, I'd go for drinking.

 

[Jokodo]

(...) Moore seems to be a part of a culture that is about keeping females subservient, not so much about being sexually free.

I agree with that. It does seem that Moore was, or is, a predator. I just think that "they were below the age of consent, so we can tell that he's evil without even looking at the details" is one very lazy and fundamentally broken argument.