Republicans Seem To Have A Big Pedophile Problem

[Derec]

Passing for younger than 15 is "visually pre- or mid-pubescence"

Sure. Kelly did not express her point well I think. Maybe she meant to say "pass for older"?
Many teenagers look older. You can certainly find many 15 and 18 year olds that look the same age, or even 17 and 20 year olds for that matter. And what if the younger person lies about their age? Or even gets fake id? Do you agree with "strict liability" here or should government have to show mens rea?

If you look at a 17 year, 364 day old and find her attractive, you are a "pedophile", but the next day, you are not. Is that really how some people think pedophilia works?

You keep ignoring the fact that you also don't seem to support laws that would actually make it illegal for adults to fuck 15 year olds. Curious, that.

Note that you edited my words where I say the exact opposite. Let me repeat them, in bold.
Wrong. I did not say that it was "not so bad" for adults not close in age to have sex with 15 year olds. There are certainly good reasons to have laws to protect teenagers under a certain age when it comes to sex, even if we disagree how those laws should look like.
Of course, I do agree with laws criminalizing adults not close in age having sex with 15 year olds. I do not think an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old should be prosecuted though, even though he or she is technically an adult.
But just because I support close-in-age exceptions does not mean I am against "laws that would actually make it illegal for adults to fuck 15 year olds". That is just libel at this point.

In fact you whine like a stuck pig about such irrelevance whenever it's pointed out that the people arguing for this aren't 19, they're 40, or even 80.

I do not think it is irrelevant. If your argument hinges on the black-and-white absolutist notions that "anybody even a day under 18 is a child and it's all pedophilia" then you lose all nuance, and there is no reason not to consider an 18 or 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend a "pedophile". And it's not a fictional scenario either. Prosecutions of close-in-age relationships have happened, and often lead to these young adults having to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

We can make laws that allow kids to 'explore' while still banning old-ass pedophiles from creeping.

Yes, but we also should use the word "pedophilia" more judiciously. Do you really think looking at 17 years and 364 days old is "pedophilia"? Or should this very emotionally charged word be better reserved for the likes of actual old-ass pedophiles like Stacie-Marie Laughton who was creeping on 5 year olds?

Instead of presenting a structure of better laws that prevent pedophiles from creeping, you make posts like these defending those broken laws that let adults rape children, and pretend we can't or shouldn't do better.

Our laws do not allow "pedophiles creeping" or raping children (or non-child minors for that matter). Neither do I advocate for laws that allow that.
If anything, our laws are too broad, and get applied to things like teenagers sexting or having sex with each other.

The issue is not that laws allow this or that, it's that evidence matters. You can't prosecute if there isn't sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal charge. And to do away with that would destroy the entire edifice of our justice system.

 

[Derec]

Charges should be brought against all credibly accused of rape, particularly of minors. Whoever they are.

"Credibly accused" is legal speak that just means that the accusation cannot be dismissed or disproven out of hand. It just means that the matter can and should be investigated. It does not mean that the case should proceed to trial unless the investigation finds sufficient evidence that warrants proceeding to trial.

 

[Derec]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape by more than one women.

Again you with "credibly accused" as if that means that the accusations are likely true. It does not mean that, and the phrase sounds stronger than it legally is, which is probably why it is so popular among polemicists like you.

I believed them then and I still believe them.

Why? There is no evidence for them.

Unfortunately, the legal system and the voting public did not.

Why do you think it is unfortunate that the public did not believe claims without evidence?
Even much worse, why do you think that it is unfortunate that the legal system did not believe claims without evidence?

What is most interesting to me is that apparently everyone is skipping right past the part where someone born male who transitioned ( in Emily’s parlance, a biological male) just plead guilty to soliciting inappropriate images of young children.

I think dismissing this case as irrelevant for partisan reasons is ridiculous.

Now, I know that it is indeed possible for women to sexually abuse other women, men and children. It appears much more common for males to sexually abuse others but it is also likely that it is less reported or prosecuted when the perpetrators are female.

I think so too. However, with any particular accusation, we should always demand evidence. Regardless of who the accusers and the accused are.

 

[Derec]

Let me remind non-Americans that a "state Rep." is NOT what is commonly meant by a "Rep." There are about 1000 top politicians in Washington who rank as a "Rep" (Representative to Congress) or higher. There are 50 states, so 50 batches of "State Reps" and, while not quite "a dime a dozen," politicians of this importance form a MUCH larger pool than the top 1000 Feds.

So what? Does that make xir's conduct any better?

New Hampshire is not a large state: it ranks #42 out of the 50 by population. And the N.H. legislature has 424 members (400+24 for the two Houses). California -- a state which dwarfs New Hampshire -- has only 120 legislators (80+40).

Again, so what?

IOW, Derec is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to come up with a sex offender, supposedly on a par with Speaker Dennis Hastert, a rapist whose position was so high he would automatically have become President if Clinton-Gore both died during 1999-2000 or Bush-Cheney both died during 2001-2007. Hastert molested at least four boys as young as 14 years of age during his time as a high school wrestling coach.

AFAIK, he was only ever convicted of financial misconduct, and in any case, all that allegedly happened in the 1970s.
Why are you dredging all that up now?

And why are you so insistent on downplaying the case of an actual pedophile? To sink to your level for a minute, do you like ogling 5 year olds on the streets of New York?
Also, I did not trawl feeds to find anything, it randomly popped up because the guilty plea had just happened.

Transgender too! "Two birds with one stone" for the haters of Dems and queers.

I do not hate transgender people, although this person does not seem to actually be transitioning.

The claimed trans identity is relevant in one sense though. It led state party officials to overlook Laughton's already present red flags. Trans people can be good or bad, but fauxgressives are obsessed with identity über alles, and will overlook a lot for a person with a woke identity. A cis man with Laughton's record would never have been supported as a state legislature candidate, much less praised as "the backbone of the Granite State".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

By whole orders of magnitude.

If we were to put it in dB scale, Democrats would have negative dB, and the GOP would at least be in the 10's.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also Derec says this while he consistently promotes the paranoia against immigrants, which is partisan.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also Derec says this while he consistently promotes the paranoia against immigrants, which is partisan.

It would be a lot easier, except for the fact that folks in one of the parties of note here seem to "know the difference between a 'pedophile' and 'ephebophile'", never mind why.

In fact, I think it actually pays to just call them all pedophiles just to expose the people who use that argument for the molester wannabes that they are.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also Derec says this while he consistently promotes the paranoia against immigrants, which is partisan.

It would be a lot easier, except for the fact that folks in one of the parties of note here seem to "know the difference between a 'pedophile' and 'ephebophile'", never mind why.

In fact, I think it actually pays to just call them all pedophiles just to expose the people who use that argument for the molester wannabes that they are.

I would be a lot kinder if they didn't consistently promote hatred against groups that don't deserve it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also Derec says this while he consistently promotes the paranoia against immigrants, which is partisan.

It would be a lot easier, except for the fact that folks in one of the parties of note here seem to "know the difference between a 'pedophile' and 'ephebophile'", never mind why.

In fact, I think it actually pays to just call them all pedophiles just to expose the people who use that argument for the molester wannabes that they are.

I would be a lot kinder if they didn't consistently promote hatred against groups that don't deserve it.

I wouldn't.

I think the fact that someone is a pedophile apologist is somehow even worse* than apologists for hating people that don't deserve it.

*But not by much

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also Derec says this while he consistently promotes the paranoia against immigrants, which is partisan.

It would be a lot easier, except for the fact that folks in one of the parties of note here seem to "know the difference between a 'pedophile' and 'ephebophile'", never mind why.

In fact, I think it actually pays to just call them all pedophiles just to expose the people who use that argument for the molester wannabes that they are.

I would be a lot kinder if they didn't consistently promote hatred against groups that don't deserve it.

I wouldn't.

I think the fact that someone is a pedophile apologist is somehow even worse* than apologists for hating people that don't deserve it.

*But not by much

Yeah, should've added (and/or) or doing the whole pedo apologizing thing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I once saw a standup comedian discuss the differences between the words related to the age of child one is attracted to and ended the joke that nobody makes these distinctions in speech because you can’t do it without sounding like a pedophile.

And that kind of moral totalitarianism is how you end up with laws criminalizing 18 year olds sleeping with their 17 year old girlfriends.
Or a mob beating up a guy in similar circumstances.

So, based on your response and what you clipped from my post, I will assume that you agree that the hypocrisy on the right is the real concerning issue, not the lack of pedantry on the left.

Or did I just get that backwards because you seemed more outraged by the so-called “moral totalitarianism” exhibited by the comedian I referenced.

 

[thebeave]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

Proof of this claim would be in the form of a large random sample statistical analysis of convicted pedophiles. Can you provide such information? Or maybe it was provided earlier in this thread and I missed it. At any rate, left leaning people cherry picking news articles that conform to their preferred narrative is not all that convincing. And even if it is true, its a bit like saying Moe was the smart one of the Three Stooges.

 

[Toni]

IOW, teens can legally have sex with other teens, as long as there is consent and a small or no age difference. It’s not generally considered legal or even socially OK for adults to have sex with minors.

Those two things are contradictory. Some teens are adults. So you you bad any adults having sex with any minors, you also criminalize sex among some teenagers.
If you cling to "anybody under 18 is a child and it's all pedophilia" as is being done in this thread, you make it more likely that laws will be written and applied in an overly draconian fashion. Like two teenagers, close in age, but one over 18, and the older one goes to prison and gets put on sex offender registry for life.

One can make laws that prohibit adults not close in age to not have sex with say 15 year olds without criminalizing close-age relationships. But such laws persist (for example in California) and young people do get ensnared.

And the absolutist, black-and-white, "if you disagree with calling anything below 18 pedophilia you must secretly want to fuck 15 year olds you monster" rhetoric prevalent in this and the "Epstein" thread makes such "moral panic" overreaches more likely, not less. Btw, this rhetoric has already invaded unrelated threads thanks to Swammi, who never passes an opportunity at an ad hominem, the more disgusting the better.

You’re nitpicking here. Yes, an 18 year old is legally an adult and can have sex with a 16 year old or a 60 year old. In many states, a 20 year old cannot legally have sex with a 17 year old.

In common parlance, some people refer to wanting to have sex with those below the age of consent as pedophilia and are not behind referring to a 50 year old who is fucking a 19 year old as a pedo, although that does not meet the definition.

As I noted before, many states do have so called Romeo and Juliet laws that do not criminalize minors close in age from having sex with each other. It is one thing for a 17 year old to have sex with a 16 year old and another thing entirely for the same 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old.

In regards to the sex trafficking that happened on Epstein’s island and allegedly at Mar a Largo, at least some of the girls were well below the age of consent for consensual sex with adults, and also well below the age of consent for prostitution, which is what they were being used as: prostitutes.

If you ever read any of the accounts, it is easy for most people to see how much coercion was used to entrap young girls into situations they felt powerless to escape.

15 year olds are kids whose bodies may have adult features but they are still kids, reason as kids, lack the legal or emotional agency to make many, many decisions for themselves. They are not prepared to advocate for their own wants and needs and they pretty much lack the legal standing to so advocate. They are off limits. Full stop.

 

[Toni]

Charges should be brought against all credibly accused of rape, particularly of minors. Whoever they are.

"Credibly accused" is legal speak that just means that the accusation cannot be dismissed or disproven out of hand. It just means that the matter can and should be investigated. It does not mean that the case should proceed to trial unless the investigation finds sufficient evidence that warrants proceeding to trial.

Credibly accused, in my usage, means that there is sufficient evidence to bring charges and of course to continue to investigate.

It is unlikely that evidence will appear without any investigation. Yes, I believe every accusation of rape or sexual assault should be investigated.

 

[Toni]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

Proof of this claim would be in the form of a large random sample statistical analysis of convicted pedophiles. Can you provide such information? Or maybe it was provided earlier in this thread and I missed it. At any rate, left leaning people cherry picking news articles that conform to their preferred narrative is not all that convincing. And even if it is true, its a bit like saying Moe was the smart one of the Three Stooges.

I don’t think that anyone here is suggesting that it’s wrong for Republicans to have sex with minors but not wrong for Democrats to do the same things. I think all of us agree that it is reprehensible, no matter who.

As far as sex scandals go, Bill Clinton ( whom I have never liked or voted further) was impeached for blue jobs from a non-minor but much younger woman in the Oval Office. The Kennedys’ numerous affairs have been fodder for the news since JFK.

Now, the GOP is in power and it does indeed seem as though pedophilia ( using the term as used in common parlance: sex with minors) is an issue among GOP leadership as well as among leadership in many churches.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for organizations to protect those in power even if it means looking the other way or otherwise enabling and excusing very bad behavior, including sex with minors.

 

[Elixir]

They are off limits. Full stop.

You really want to hold Derec’s beer, don’t you?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

cherry picking news articles

It's not cherry picking when there are countless examples you can easily Google, not to mention the countless examples of people on the right defending Trump even though he's a pedophile. Plus you literally cherry pick all the time and you show no skepticism whatsoever about any bullshit being promoted by your side.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me remind non-Americans that a "state Rep." is NOT what is commonly meant by a "Rep." There are about 1000 top politicians in Washington who rank as a "Rep" (Representative to Congress) or higher. There are 50 states, so 50 batches of "State Reps" and, while not quite "a dime a dozen," politicians of this importance form a MUCH larger pool than the top 1000 Feds.

So what? Does that make xir's conduct any better?

What??? Have you taken leave of your brain?
YOU introduced this nobody BECAUSE he was a Democrat, and for NO other reason whatsoever. (True, you might have also been happy to Google up a pedophilic Muslim, Indy, Green, or member of any group you despise).
YOU know that's true. Everybody knows that's true.
You are the most disingenuous S.O.B. I've ever seen on any message-board.

New Hampshire is not a large state: it ranks #42 out of the 50 by population. And the N.H. legislature has 424 members (400+24 for the two Houses). California -- a state which dwarfs New Hampshire -- has only 120 legislators (80+40).

Again, so what?

You can't follow even the simplest train of logic?? For your "same-same" whinge YOU needed a guilty Democrat with a "position" higher than "Dogcatcher." Your chances improved given a tiny state with an oversized legislator.

IOW, Derec is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to come up with a sex offender, supposedly on a par with Speaker Dennis Hastert, a rapist whose position was so high he would automatically have become President if Clinton-Gore both died during 1999-2000 or Bush-Cheney both died during 2001-2007. Hastert molested at least four boys as young as 14 years of age during his time as a high school wrestling coach.

AFAIK, he was only ever convicted of financial misconduct, and in any case, all that allegedly happened in the 1970s.

"At a sentencing hearing, Hastert admitted that he had sexually abused boys whom he had coached."

You write "convicted." Capone was guilty of murder but convicted of tax evasion.
Are you going to pretend you do not know with certainty, as everyone else does, that he was guilty of molesting 14 year-olds?
Nah -- You won't admit it now that I've pointed it out. You'll just commit more disingenuity.

Why are you dredging all that up now?

YOU searched high and low for a nobody accused of pedophilia to "same-same" with the parade of immoral Gopsters.
Hastert was the very highest-ranking Republican in 1999 and he molested 14 year-olds.
Let me repeat that in a larger font:
Hastert was the very highest-ranking Republican in 1999 and he molested 14 year-olds.

And why are you so insistent on downplaying the case of an actual pedophile?

Nobody's downplaying pedophilia EXCEPT You. You downplay it when perpetrated by Republicans, but up-play it when perpetrated
by nobody-level Democrats.

 

[thebeave]

Only a fool would think that Democrats are free of mental illnesses or sick predilections regarding sex, attraction to inappropriate persons, or any other sort of evil.

And yet, threads like these are overtly partisan.

Nope, it just actually is the case that the right has a bigger pedophile problem than the left does.

cherry picking news articles

It's not cherry picking when there are countless examples you can easily Google, not to mention the countless examples of people on the right defending Trump even though he's a pedophile.

Unless you've gone through a statistically significant number of examples of convicted (innocent until proven guilty and all that) pedophiles (ideally in the hundreds at least), you haven't proven your case. Otherwise, its just a collection of anecdotes. Plus, there is the question of whether Google is truly unbiased in the way its presenting its search results. From what I have seen in other Google searches, I am doubful to say the least.