It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14
page: 13share:
a reply to: Dfairlite
Sadly, that is how most actual predators are caught: with time, they become more and more brazen until they finally go so far that they have to be caught. In their wake, before that happens, they leave a trail of victims with shattered lives.
Even sadder is that politics is reversing the progress made towards victims that could put these predators away sooner and save a lot of misery. At one time, not all that long ago, one could actually hear the defense of "she was asking for it," or "look what she was wearing!" That obviously kept most victims form coming forward. But then the country began to soften their attitude toward victims of sexual abuse and it became easier to come forward.
But then politics got involved. Sexual abuse is an easy claim to make against an opponent. It is hard as heck to prove or disprove, usually being a "he said, she said" case, and it carries with it that stigma of sexual perversion. People can be persuaded easily to believe the poor woman, even if the poor woman is lying, because there is a protective instinct in most men to protect women. Those are good things when the woman is being truthful, but when women started lying to do nothing more than destroy political opponents, the progress made toward believing victims started to fade. Now we're back to where we were decades ago, just instead of "she was asking for it," we use "she's probably lying." And as long as she is lying, that will never change.
Personally I believe any woman who knowingly and falsely accuses a man of sexual abuse should be convicted of a class C felony and sentenced thusly. That is not the same as being unable to prove a case; I am speaking of purposeful false charges. That is the only way we will ever be able to make progress again.
TheRedneck
Sadly, that is how most actual predators are caught: with time, they become more and more brazen until they finally go so far that they have to be caught. In their wake, before that happens, they leave a trail of victims with shattered lives.
Even sadder is that politics is reversing the progress made towards victims that could put these predators away sooner and save a lot of misery. At one time, not all that long ago, one could actually hear the defense of "she was asking for it," or "look what she was wearing!" That obviously kept most victims form coming forward. But then the country began to soften their attitude toward victims of sexual abuse and it became easier to come forward.
But then politics got involved. Sexual abuse is an easy claim to make against an opponent. It is hard as heck to prove or disprove, usually being a "he said, she said" case, and it carries with it that stigma of sexual perversion. People can be persuaded easily to believe the poor woman, even if the poor woman is lying, because there is a protective instinct in most men to protect women. Those are good things when the woman is being truthful, but when women started lying to do nothing more than destroy political opponents, the progress made toward believing victims started to fade. Now we're back to where we were decades ago, just instead of "she was asking for it," we use "she's probably lying." And as long as she is lying, that will never change.
Personally I believe any woman who knowingly and falsely accuses a man of sexual abuse should be convicted of a class C felony and sentenced thusly. That is not the same as being unable to prove a case; I am speaking of purposeful false charges. That is the only way we will ever be able to make progress again.
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Tort covers libel and slander. Perjury covers lying in court.
Personally I believe any woman who knowingly and falsely accuses a man of sexual abuse should be convicted of a class C felony and sentenced thusly.
a reply to: Phage
True enough, but that does not make them infallible. Supreme Court Justices are human and just as prone to selfish agendas and base desires as anyone else. Just because they make a decision, it does not follow that it is the right decision. It only follows that it is the decision that will be used as legal basis until it is overturned.
Until the infallible aliens come and set up their justice system, we have to live with this arrangement; it's just the best we can do.
I concentrate on the DNC simply because the DNC (operating under the trade name "Washington Post") paid for and broke the story. The truth is there are plenty of establishment-minded Republicans in DC that also agree with the underhanded tactics used against those who reflect the will of the people.
One of the things I am looking forward to is seeing the faces on those in both parties when the Honorable Senator Judge Roy Moore walks in. Warren's head will likely literally explode. I plan on having a DVR recording when it does...
TheRedneck
They are the ones who validate (or invalidate) our laws, after all.
True enough, but that does not make them infallible. Supreme Court Justices are human and just as prone to selfish agendas and base desires as anyone else. Just because they make a decision, it does not follow that it is the right decision. It only follows that it is the decision that will be used as legal basis until it is overturned.
Until the infallible aliens come and set up their justice system, we have to live with this arrangement; it's just the best we can do.
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.
I concentrate on the DNC simply because the DNC (operating under the trade name "Washington Post") paid for and broke the story. The truth is there are plenty of establishment-minded Republicans in DC that also agree with the underhanded tactics used against those who reflect the will of the people.
One of the things I am looking forward to is seeing the faces on those in both parties when the Honorable Senator Judge Roy Moore walks in. Warren's head will likely literally explode. I plan on having a DVR recording when it does...
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Just what we need. More redundant laws. Because no one ever falsely accused anyone of anything before.
Just what we need. More redundant laws. Because no one ever falsely accused anyone of anything before.
a reply to: TheRedneck
Do you think the decision in Loving v. Virginia was wrong?
Just because they make a decision, it does not follow that it is the right decision.
Do you think the decision in Loving v. Virginia was wrong?
Literally?
Warren's head will likely literally explode.
edit on 11/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)
a reply to: TheRedneck
It's the case I quoted to you previously.
It's the case I quoted to you previously.
www.law.cornell.edu...
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
You seemed so certain.
We can only hope.
edit on 11/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Does all this seem similar to Herman Cain scenario? When a person gets into a positive position then the attacks come? Where did the accuser(s) of
Cain go after he dropped? Where will this accuser go when Moore drops....
If he is guilty then so be it, but once again decades and nothing until now.....
If he is guilty then so be it, but once again decades and nothing until now.....
a reply to: Phage
That would violate privacy laws and with the inaccuracy of such tests it would unduly deny people their civil rights. But since there's no inaccuracy in determining whether a man and man or woman and woman can create a child, it's common sense to exclude them from marriage as it is in no way fundamental to our survival.
However, I would also accept that the government get out of the marriage business. Our fundamental rights shouldn't be regulated.
That would violate privacy laws and with the inaccuracy of such tests it would unduly deny people their civil rights. But since there's no inaccuracy in determining whether a man and man or woman and woman can create a child, it's common sense to exclude them from marriage as it is in no way fundamental to our survival.
However, I would also accept that the government get out of the marriage business. Our fundamental rights shouldn't be regulated.
edit on
12-11-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago
top topics
-
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 10 flags -
This is adorable you guys!
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 8 flags -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions: 15 hours ago, 5 flags -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Light from Space Might Be Travelling Instantaneously
Space Exploration • 28 • : Lazy88 -
More Bad News for Labour and Rachel Reeves Stole Christmas from Working Families
Regional Politics • 9 • : covent -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness • 2 • : VariedcodeSole -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7914 • : Cymru -
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News • 25 • : Echo007 -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions • 24 • : FullHeathen -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3713 • : 777Vader -
Rant. I am sick of people saying the police are revenue raising.
Rant • 12 • : inflaymes69 -
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness • 10 • : nugget1 -
Drones everywhere in New Jersey ---and Elsewhere Master Thread
Aliens and UFOs • 174 • : nugget1