"Me Too" Judge Roy Moore

[Jokodo]

Put another way, and to stress this again, this is independent of the Moore case though it was triggered by the kind of arguments some people are bringing up here: Banning all sex between, say, a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old on the (not unreasonable) assumption that the rate of predatory relationships might be heightened relative to ones between a 23-year-old and a 20-year-old is not unlike banning all driving on certain holidays or certain times of the week where it's customary to drink alcohol on the (equally reasonable) assumption that the rate of drunk drivers will be heightened. If we want to get rid of predators and drunk drivers, we need to check for predatory behaviour and drunk driving, not blanket ban something that might be loosely correlated with either.

There's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at relationships where one partner is much younger, nor with increasing alcohol checks on Fridays nights, but the fact that it's a Friday night, or that one partner is 17, shouldn't be what makes it punishable.

 

[Derec]

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.

Only one is below the age of consent anyway. All the other ones were at least 16.
The Gloria Alred one is the most disturbing, if true, because it would be an actual sexual assault, even if the girl was legal. However, there has been no evidence offered to substantiate these charges. Even if the yearbook entry is true, it is not evidence of sexual assault.

 

[blastula]

Testimony is evidence.

 

[Derec]

Testimony is evidence.

It is as strong an evidence as his denial. It's a "he said, she said" situation. Of course, the feminist Left wants men to be judged guilty on nothing more than an accusation by a female. Due process? Presumption of innocence? All tools of the patriarchy according to them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Testimony is evidence.

It is as strong an evidence as his denial. It's a "he said, she said" situation. Of course, the feminist Left wants men to be judged guilty on nothing more than an accusation by a female. Due process? Presumption of innocence? All tools of the patriarchy according to them.

Hes not in court but of course the racist, sexist south declares black victims guilty in other threads and pretends the victim didnt tell her mother/friends at the time who corroborated that recollection. I guess the patriarchal south has a selective memory. Both sides, eh?

 

[blastula]

Testimony is evidence.

It is as strong an evidence as his denial. It's a "he said, she said" situation. Of course, the feminist Left wants men to be judged guilty on nothing more than an accusation by a female. Due process? Presumption of innocence? All tools of the patriarchy according to them.

That's patent nonsense. Even in court it doesn't work that way. Due process doesn't mean everyone's testimony is counted as equally credible. Each testimony is judged on its own. A "did not" defense doesn't automatically negate anybody else's testimony, obviously. And in this case, the women's testimony (even without the corroborating testimony of friends and documents) is far more convincing that Moore's ludicrous denials. Critical thinking is your real enemy, derec, not the "feminist left."

 

[Malintent]

Except that this was in the US and Moore is a lawyer. Apparently you feel it is okay to disregard the law.

I did not say that. What I was saying is that the law is pretty arbitrary here.
Also, it supposedly happened almost 40 years ago and is based on one woman's say-so.
There are plenty of legitimate points against Roy Moore, without engaging in this witch hunt.

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

 

[Elixir]

Except that this was in the US and Moore is a lawyer. Apparently you feel it is okay to disregard the law.

I did not say that. What I was saying is that the law is pretty arbitrary here.
Also, it supposedly happened almost 40 years ago and is based on one woman's say-so.
There are plenty of legitimate points against Roy Moore, without engaging in this witch hunt.

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

About 30 witnesses in total. But you're conversing with Derec, so what you really have here are 30 instances of "one woman's say-so". And since the value of one woman's say-so is worth zero, you have 0x30=0. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
It's the neo-con way!

 

[Frikki]

Testimony is evidence.

It is as strong an evidence as his denial. It's a "he said, she said" situation. Of course, the feminist Left wants men to be judged guilty on nothing more than an accusation by a female. Due process? Presumption of innocence? All tools of the patriarchy according to them.

And yet you always believe the testimony of whites that kill blacks and never vice versa, I wonder why that is hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Derec]

And yet you always believe the testimony of whites that kill blacks and never vice versa, I wonder why that is hmmmmmmmmmm.

Nonsense. I am pretty consistent that a mere accusation is not sufficient evidence for any action.

 

[Derec]

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

First of all, there is no 7 other women. Only two women accused Moore of anything illegal. The first accuser said that he tried to seduce her when she was 14. The yearbook accuser claimed that when she was 16 he tried to force her to perform oral sex. He has been pursuing/dating other girls in the 16-18 year old range, but that is not illegal under Alabama law, so they are not really "accusers".
The weight of the evidence is that yes, Moore did like to pursue older teenagers when he was in his early 30s and indeed, he married a significantly younger woman. But to go from there to child molestation and sexual assault is quite a step and requires more evidence than merely two women saying so.

And what 3 witnesses? If there had been actual witnesses, this issue would have been over and done. But there are no witnesses.

 

[Derec]

That's patent nonsense. Even in court it doesn't work that way. Due process doesn't mean everyone's testimony is counted as equally credible. Each testimony is judged on its own.

I disagree that a testimony without corroboration should be sufficient evidence for anything more serious than a small claims trial. But we are not even dealing with testimony here, just public accusations. A proper testimony is under oath, and with defense counsel able to cross-examine the accuser. None of these things apply here.

A "did not" defense doesn't automatically negate anybody else's testimony, obviously.

If those are the only two pieces of "evidence", a "did not" defense should automatically negate a "did too" accusation, obviously.

And in this case, the women's testimony

She did not testify.

(even without the corroborating testimony of friends and documents)

What friends and documents?
Did any of her friends see an assault? Would be news to me.
And what documents? You mean the yearbook? Even if genuine, it would only conform Moore had an interest in the girl (platonic or otherwise) when she was above the age of consent. It is not in any way evidence of sexual assault.

is far more convincing that Moore's ludicrous denials.

I do find much about Moore ludicrous, but the idea that he could be victim of politically or financially (esp. the yearbook accuser, since she is represented by Gloria Alred) motivated false accusations is not one of them.

Critical thinking is your real enemy, derec, not the "feminist left."

Wrong again.

 

[J842P]

Following the polling results didn't leave me with much hope the Moore would lose, but I think this latest development settles it:

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/08/5694...dmits-adding-notation-to-yearbook-inscription

This will be enough for enough people to tell themselves the accusations are all a lie, and Moore will win.

 

[RavenSky]

Following the polling results didn't leave me with much hope the Moore would lose, but I think this latest development settles it:

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/08/5694...dmits-adding-notation-to-yearbook-inscription

This will be enough for enough people to tell themselves the accusations are all a lie, and Moore will win.

I hate my country again

 

[Ford]

"We want jobs, jobs, jobs, so get out and vote for Roy Moore,"

The really fucked up thing is that we have jobs. We're at what is traditionally considered "full employment." An unemployment rate around 4 percent. I don't know how high the unemployment rate would have to climb to where we'd say as a society "yeah, he may have molested a teenager, but we need work" but I'm fairly certain it isn't 4 percent.

 

[sharon45]

And the safer it got out there in Alabama to vote for Moore, the braver Trump became.

 

[Malintent]

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

First of all, there is no 7 other women. Only two women accused Moore of anything illegal. The first accuser said that he tried to seduce her when she was 14. The yearbook accuser claimed that when she was 16 he tried to force her to perform oral sex. He has been pursuing/dating other girls in the 16-18 year old range, but that is not illegal under Alabama law, so they are not really "accusers".
The weight of the evidence is that yes, Moore did like to pursue older teenagers when he was in his early 30s and indeed, he married a significantly younger woman. But to go from there to child molestation and sexual assault is quite a step and requires more evidence than merely two women saying so.

And what 3 witnesses? If there had been actual witnesses, this issue would have been over and done. But there are no witnesses.

The witnesses are the people that one of the victims spoke to around the time the incident occurred.. around the same time that mall security was banning him from the mall due to parents complaining about this predatory behavior there... But you like to take all of the corroborating evidence of his systemic, consistently inappropriate behavior and address them in a vacuum individually so they appear 'weaker' than they are, with respect to confirmation of the accuser's telling.

It's a dishonest means of conveying a position. It is beneath most of the members of this board. This is why your opinions are so widely rejected, it seems to me.

 

[Toni]

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

First of all, there is no 7 other women. Only two women accused Moore of anything illegal. The first accuser said that he tried to seduce her when she was 14. The yearbook accuser claimed that when she was 16 he tried to force her to perform oral sex. He has been pursuing/dating other girls in the 16-18 year old range, but that is not illegal under Alabama law, so they are not really "accusers".
The weight of the evidence is that yes, Moore did like to pursue older teenagers when he was in his early 30s and indeed, he married a significantly younger woman. But to go from there to child molestation and sexual assault is quite a step and requires more evidence than merely two women saying so.

And what 3 witnesses? If there had been actual witnesses, this issue would have been over and done. But there are no witnesses.

So how many illegal acts are enough? You have two attempted /sexual assaults on minors by a man well into his 30's. I would think that one would be enough to make him an unfit candidate.

He was banned from the local mall. Security at high schools kept an eye on him so he couldn't bother teenage girls.

This is a pattern of behavior of an established adult seeking out much younger girls who would be in a less powerful position to protest or to escape or to be believed.

This is why it is an issue. Not some guy asked a girl out and found out later that she was younger than she appeared or claimed to be.

He knew the ages of these girls. He knew at at least some of them were in vulnerable situations--the one 14 year old girl because he went out of his way to meet her while she was in family court. At age 14!

 

[Elixir]

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

First of all, there is no 7 other women. Only two women accused Moore of anything illegal. The first accuser said that he tried to seduce her when she was 14. The yearbook accuser claimed that when she was 16 he tried to force her to perform oral sex. He has been pursuing/dating other girls in the 16-18 year old range, but that is not illegal under Alabama law, so they are not really "accusers".
The weight of the evidence is that yes, Moore did like to pursue older teenagers when he was in his early 30s and indeed, he married a significantly younger woman. But to go from there to child molestation and sexual assault is quite a step and requires more evidence than merely two women saying so.

And what 3 witnesses? If there had been actual witnesses, this issue would have been over and done. But there are no witnesses.

So how many illegal acts are enough? You have two attempted /sexual assaults on minors by a man well into his 30's. I would think that one would be enough to make him an unfit candidate.

He was banned from the local mall. Security at high schools kept an eye on him so he couldn't bother teenage girls.

This is a pattern of behavior of an established adult seeking out much younger girls who would be in a less powerful position to protest or to escape or to be believed.

This is why it is an issue. Not some guy asked a girl out and found out later that she was younger than she appeared or claimed to be.

He knew the ages of these girls. He knew at at least some of them were in vulnerable situations--the one 14 year old girl because he went out of his way to meet her while she was in family court. At age 14!

Derec can dispute the particulars of any isolated case, but the fact is that there are over 30 people basically affirming that yes, Roy Moore is an unscrupulous scumbag. And his own verifiable history shows that he has no respect for the law, and will follow whatever HE thinks is "right" instead of following the laws instituted by elected representatives.
People who are not willing to follow laws have no business making them.
Except in dictatorships. Nazis, for instance.

 

[sharon45]

point of fact... it is not "one woman's say so"... it is hers, 7 others, and 3 witnesses to at least 1 of the child's experience that "say so".

First of all, there is no 7 other women. Only two women accused Moore of anything illegal. The first accuser said that he tried to seduce her when she was 14. The yearbook accuser claimed that when she was 16 he tried to force her to perform oral sex. He has been pursuing/dating other girls in the 16-18 year old range, but that is not illegal under Alabama law, so they are not really "accusers".
The weight of the evidence is that yes, Moore did like to pursue older teenagers when he was in his early 30s and indeed, he married a significantly younger woman. But to go from there to child molestation and sexual assault is quite a step and requires more evidence than merely two women saying so.

And what 3 witnesses? If there had been actual witnesses, this issue would have been over and done. But there are no witnesses.

So how many illegal acts are enough? You have two attempted /sexual assaults on minors by a man well into his 30's. I would think that one would be enough to make him an unfit candidate.

He was banned from the local mall. Security at high schools kept an eye on him so he couldn't bother teenage girls.

This is a pattern of behavior of an established adult seeking out much younger girls who would be in a less powerful position to protest or to escape or to be believed.

This is why it is an issue. Not some guy asked a girl out and found out later that she was younger than she appeared or claimed to be.

He knew the ages of these girls. He knew at at least some of them were in vulnerable situations--the one 14 year old girl because he went out of his way to meet her while she was in family court. At age 14!

These are only allegations, and from decades ago. If it is a lot greater than just that, he should have been at least charged.