Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

a reply to: Boadicea

Rather than being shunned, people are finding that people don't blame them, as victims, quite so much as they did in the past. Rather than being disregarded, people are finding that people are paying attention.

The climate for this sort of thing seems to be clearing recently. Don't you think that's an improvement?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

This is just sad now. But okay. You would take a person's inherent right to choose their own life partner, the person they will have personal relations with, the person they will bear children and raise those children with, and give it to government. Got it. Rationalize it and make excuses for it all you want, but it is what it is. It is either a right in accordance with our free will and freedom of conscience, or it's a privilege granted at the whim of government.

Please re-read the part where I said:

And, of course, all of this is why government should never have gotten into marriage in the first place. This should be up to people to decide as it is a social contract.

I can't help it if you don't read.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

Rather than being shunned, people are finding that people don't blame them, as victims, quite so much as they did in the past. Rather than being disregarded, people are finding that people are paying attention.

The climate for this sort of thing seems to be clearing recently. Don't you think that's an improvement?

Yes and no... speaking generally, there is far too much victim shaming and blaming. A recent example is the case of the officers who were charged for raping an 18-year-old girl -- a teenager! -- in the back of their van. I was shocked at how many people automatically blamed the girl for one disgusting reason for another... as if anyone under arrest has any free choice to begin with. So, in many ways, the victim shaming and blaming is as bad as ever. But you are right that more people are willing to stand up loud and proud and demand that justice be done.

In this particular case, however, because of the controversy the judge has created previously, there were many many opponents who would have championed her claims just as they are doing now. But I understand the victims may not have realized that they would have much support from some/many, or they otherwise may not have been mentally/emotionally prepared to go public before. And there has been much focus on supporting victims recently and condemning the abusers, so that could explain a change of heart now.

I won't condemn and vilify these girls as liars unless and until proven that they are. But neither can I condemn and vilify the accused unless and until proven that he's really a lying liar pervert.

a reply to: ketsuko

... This should be up to people to decide...

Exactly. Because it is the right of the people -- not a privilege granted by government!

I can't help it if you don't read.

Yeah, right... I don't read... that's it. Really? That's the level you're stooping to now?

a reply to: Boadicea

But neither can I condemn and vilify the accused unless and until proven that he's really a lying liar pervert.

You're safe to support him then. Because it cannot be proven. As is often the case with matters like this. There is only what he says, what she says, and hearsay.

a reply to: Phage

You're safe to support him then. Because it cannot be proven. As is often the case with matters like this. There is only what he says, what she says, and hearsay.

Well, since I'm not a resident of Alabama my support or lack thereof is moot. But continuing with the previous reasoning, due to obvious public support, and in keeping with predatory tendencies, if he is a sexual abuser then he continued abusing and most likely became even more brazen (and perverted), and subsequent victims will also be emboldened to speak out. I would also think that our fourth estate will do their due diligence and find further such claims, perhaps even formal complaints or official charges of some kind. It will create a record/pattern that either corroborates or debunks such claims, and people can believe or not... or just decide they don't know and vote on the side of caution.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

... This should be up to people to decide...

Exactly. Because it is the right of the people -- not a privilege granted by government!

I can't help it if you don't read.

Yeah, right... I don't read... that's it. Really? That's the level you're stooping to now?

Obviously you didn't since you completely accused me of letting government do it.

What you are missing is that a true right is intrinsic to you as an individual, something you have whether you are by yourself, with other people, or have a government or not.

That's all I've been trying to get you to understand.

Since you cannot get married by yourself, there is. no. right. to it. That has nothing to do with anything from government.

Simply put because you need society of some sort - at least yourself and one other person in order to even hope to form a marriage of any type - straight, gay, convenience, what have you - you have no right to it because it is not something intrinsic to you. You can't have it independent of all others.

And your second malfunction seems to be that because I hold that position, I am trying to tell you that government has the right to tell you if you can marry or not, and that's a ridiculous position too. Marriage existed long before anything we would call a government ever did.

Assume all recognized government collapses tomorrow, and guess what? You still have no right to marriage because if you are on your own, you can't be married all by yourself. You have to have at least one other person who agrees to enter a marriage with you. AND, assuming you find that one person and the two of you meet others, that group of others must agree to respect the agreement the two of you have made.

All of that can be done *without* recognized government. That is why I say it is a social contract. Groups of people must agree to it and recognize it and respect it amongst themselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please stop. I already proved you wrong. Repeat yourself ad nauseum and call me any insulting names you wish and lower yourself to any level you wish, but saying it doesn't make it so.

You do you. And I'll do me. And I'm done with you and this discussion.

a reply to: Boadicea

or just decide they don't know and vote on the side of caution.

Probably not.

a reply to: Phage

Correct. People are seeing through the dirty tricks of politics and it will likely get people elected that otherwise shouldn't. The least credible time to levy an accusation like this is during the final stretch of a campaign. If it honestly happened and you wanted this person to not be elected, the accusation should be levied at the beginning of the campaign (torpedo) or after they're sworn in and can be forced to resign.

But if your goal is to win a senate seat, you want to levy this type of accusation in the final weeks of the campaign. If you do it at the beginning, they'll get a different candidate. If you do it after they're sworn in, they'll appoint a party loyal replacement until the next election.

a reply to: Dfairlite
I'm not sure I get your drift. Are you saying that the accusations are an attempt to derail Moore, or that they were just badly timed.

The thing is, the accusers did not really come out all of a sudden. Their stories are the result of a journalist investigation.

Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.

source
Apparently people there knew (know) about his proclivities. Now a lot more do. Whether it will have any effect on the voters is questionable. We've seen that a candidate's base can easily dismiss things like this.

a reply to: Phage

The thing is, the accusers did not really come out all of a sudden. Their stories are the result of a journalist investigation.

They most certainly did come out 'all of a sudden.' You apparently are having trouble understanding that Moore has been in the public eye, and under intense political scrutiny because of his arrogant stance against political correctness, for decades. Decades! Decades of political opponents doing everything short of turning cartwheels naked in a church tower to discredit Roy Moore. Montgomery County (the seat of liberalism here) would burn him at the stake in a celebratory party if they could get away with it.

No one in Alabama found anything that would stick. Nothing. The man is clean as a whistle, so clean no one could tear him down... until he took on the national DNC. I guess even dirty Alabama politicians have some standards. It is quite obvious the DNC has none, however, so they searched, and scoured, and begged until they found someone who would lie for money.

That's what I believe this is. And until some proof comes out one way or another, I will continue to believe that. The earlier post about predators never changing is true. If he was a sexual predator 40 years ago, he is one today, and probably a worse one. It wouldn't be that hard to find a laundry list of women over the years he has preyed upon. So where are they?

Ironically, the real reason no one else is stepping up with more recent allegations is the DNC is running out of money to pay for all the lies, because their supporters are tired of hearing lies.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They most certainly did come out 'all of a sudden.'

If you say so. It's not what the reporters say about it. They say that the women were approached by them and were reluctant. Corfman, apparently, is a Republican voter.

The man is clean as a whistle, so clean no one could tear him down

Yup, just like Mary and Joseph, right?

That's what I believe this is.

Yeah. I know. You also seem to think someone has sought "superior rights" and that marriage is not a right, contrary to what the Supreme Court has stated more than once.

If he was a sexual predator 40 years ago, he is one today, and probably a worse one.

Maybe he was born again. To sin no more. Oh wait, he's married now. Isn't he? Maybe he changed his ways because of that.

Ironically, the real reason no one else is stepping up with more recent allegations is the DNC is running out of money to pay for all the lies, because their supporters are tired of hearing lies.

Seems there are members of the GOP who aren't as convinced as you about his innocence.

Two Republican senators on Sunday said that the allegations against Moore appeared stronger than his denials

thehill.com...

a reply to: Phage

It's not what the reporters say about it. They say that the women were approached by them and were reluctant. Corfman, apparently, is a Republican voter.

You really believe the reporters who probably paid for a lie would admit to something that jeopardizes their agenda? Hey, Phage, I got some oceanfront land in Kansas to sell you... cheap!

Yup, just like Mary and Joseph, right?

Who said Mary and Joseph were clean as a whistle? Not a whole lot is known about them.

Oh, wait, I get it now! Sorry it took me a minute there... you want to discredit me because of my religion and that was a dig to do so. Gotcha. Good one.

You also think someone has sought "superior rights" and that marriage is not a right, contrary to what the Supreme Court has stated more than once.

Yeah, I have this nasty habit of thinking for myself. I think I need a 12-step intervention or something to correct that.

Maybe he was born again. To sin no more. Oh wait, he's married now. Isn't he? Maybe he changed his ways because of that.

Another religious dig! Oh, Phage, you're getting good at this!

Well, better anyway. Ask any psychiatrist and they'll tell you that sexual predation is about power, not sex. Getting married does NOT put a man in a position of power... just the opposite, actually.

It was still a good try though.

Seems there are members of the GOP who aren't as convinced as you about his innocence.

I thought the Supreme Court was the Infallible Ones? Now it's the GOP too?

You're forgetting I am NOT a Republican.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I'm saying that reporting these things right before an election is going to cause people to throw it out. People can't separate dirty politics from the actual news because our politics has become so filled with mud. What was the goal of the investigation and why was it happening now instead of a few months ago or a few months from now? The only reasons you publish this story now are:
1) Smear campaign (most people's minds will go here, with media trust near all time lows)
2) unfortunate timing (hard to believe when it was a media investigation to begin with)

So when real news hits the wire (and this may be real news) during a lead up to an election, people will not believe it.

The media condemned those three duke lacrosse players for political points. Rolling stone ruined a guys life for political points. All of the women who were suing trump for SA are now dropping their cases or suing for defamation (odd?).

a reply to: TheRedneck

If he was a sexual predator 40 years ago, he is one today, and probably a worse one.

This is an important point, with the more power he accrued, he would have become more and more brazen in most cases.

a reply to: Phage

Seems there are members of the GOP who aren't as convinced as you about his innocence.

That's not proof of anything. You've got to remember, the GOP didn't want Roy Moore.

a reply to: TheRedneck

you want to discredit me because of my religion and that was a dig to do so.

No. There's a backstory about that, regarding Moore and the current brouhaha.

Another religious dig!

Not at all. Hopefully he mended his ways.

I thought the Supreme Court was the Infallible Ones?

They are the ones who validate (or invalidate) our laws, after all. If they say marriage is a right, it pretty much is a right. For example, blacks have the same right to marry a white person that a white person does. There can be no law which denies that right. I quoted from that decision for you previously. In that decision marriage is explicitly stated to be a right.

You're forgetting I am NOT a Republican.

I didn't consider your political affiliation. You were concentrating the DNC so I thought it appropriate to point out that it is not only Democrats who don't buy Moore's denials.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm saying that reporting these things right before an election is going to cause people to throw it out.

Yeah, that's one of the options in my attempt to interpret what you were getting at. I would tend to agree.

That's not proof of anything.

I didn't say it was. I was pointing out that it is not just Democrats who aren't taking Moore's word for it.

a reply to: Phage

Not at all. Hopefully he mended his ways.

If he did, should he still step aside?