Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 3868 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #200 on: November 28, 2017, 09:56:30 AM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #201 on: November 28, 2017, 10:00:09 AM »
Quote
Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?
No clue.  Little bit of private school?  Growing up with a sister?  My age?  I just do.  Maybe it relates to the same logic that makes me scoff at vegetarianism for all but health reasons?  I think we are better than other animals.  I believe that our society and ability to reason the way we do makes us better.  I find any argument that excuses antisocial behavior of "we're just following our biology" as repellent. (and yes, I see the trap here) ;)

That's just part of who I am.  And that person finds the idea of any adult trying to have sex with someone under 18 not only creepy, but enraging.  I suppose it's fair to say in those cases I do believe people can be "just like any other animal" in that for the sake of society they should be delt with.

But you are right, it's actions, not attractions, that are at issue. 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 10:03:12 AM by D.W. »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #202 on: November 28, 2017, 10:03:36 AM »
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

My daughter's friends are even younger than that and they range the gambit from little children no one could mistake for an adult, to ones that have reached full adult height and development.  In context it's obvious, but I'm not so sure it would be as obvious as you think to pick out some  14/15 year olds at the mall with their older cousins.  Again, I'd point to the entertainment industries use of young models, with barely anyone knowing how old they are.  Did you ever watch That '70s Show?  Mila Kunis was 14 when filming started and lied to the casting directors, pretty much wasn't 18 until the 3 or 4th season.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #203 on: November 28, 2017, 10:08:40 AM »
Quote
Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?
No clue.  Little bit of private school?  Growing up with a sister?  My age?  I just do.  Maybe it relates to the same logic that makes me scoff at vegetarianism for all but health reasons?  I think we are better than other animals.  I believe that our society and ability to reason the way we do makes us better.  I find any argument that excuses antisocial behavior of "we're just following our biology" as repellent. (and yes, I see the trap here) ;)

I didn't excuse any behavior.  I pointed out that attraction IS NOT BEHAVIOR.

Do you deny that human's have a flight or fight reflex?  It doesn't mean that someone can't be brave when their body is demanding they flee, or calm themselves when their body is flooded with adrenelin.  Quit conflating biology with thought.

Quote
That's just part of who I am.  And that person finds the idea of any adult trying to have sex with someone under 18 not only creepy, but enraging.

Which is why we have laws on the topic.  Though you should probably get on that, since many places in the country don't have a 18 break line if that's your concern, not to mention there are plenty of international places that deliberately marry and have sex below that line for your attention and rage.

Quote
I suppose it's fair to say in those cases I do believe people can be "just like any other animal" in that for the sake of society they should be delt with.

But you are right, it's actions, not attractions, that are at issue.

Lol, the rage you apparently feel, is calling into some question my point that biology and actions are not the same.  I'd suggest considering that there's nothing magic about 18, we could easily make a reasonable case for 21, or 25 or even 30 or a 7 year rule or any number of other rules that would be protective.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #204 on: November 28, 2017, 10:11:19 AM »
I think many would agree that looking to Hollywood for examples of how monetizing youth sexuality can "just happen" is like looking to the seasonal farming industry for examples of how illegal immigrant hiring can "just happen" without fault of those doing the employing. 

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #205 on: November 28, 2017, 10:20:26 AM »
We're just talking past each other.  I'm giving my opinion that I find someone getting turned on by someone that young messed up.  That's a personal opinion and reaction. 

From a societal stand point, I'm only concerned with those acting on it.  From a legal stand point I'm only concerned with those breaking the law and with laws where I believe the age is too low.  But here's the thing, I don't vote in those places.

Quote
there's nothing magic about 18, we could easily make a reasonable case for 21, or 25 or even 30 or a 7 year rule or any number of other rules that would be protective.
Agreed.  In fact I'd lean towards 21 myself, but having actually been a teenager at one point, it just exacerbates this country's denial problem with sex.  The biggest problem with these lines in the sand are two people of roughly the same age when one crosses the line before the other.  But we were talking about someone twice the age AND dancing the line of consent. 

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #206 on: November 28, 2017, 10:25:23 AM »
We're just talking past each other.  I'm giving my opinion that I find someone getting turned on by someone that young messed up.  That's a personal opinion and reaction.

D.W., my problem with that is when you say your "personal opinion" that someone reacting to biology is "messed up" I hear that the same way I hear one of those crazy old conservative's saying that it's their personal opinion that homosexuality is messed up.  Biology is what it is, and it's nothing to be embarrassed about or to try and shame others about.

Taking advantage of young people is a problem because their brains aren't fully formed and their emotional maturity is not all there, not because physically they are not ready for it and attractive.  My point is they make great models and bad relationship partners, and there's nothing wrong with recognizing they are attractive but not ready for an adult relationship.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #207 on: November 28, 2017, 10:29:55 AM »
Quote
I hear that the same way I hear one of those crazy old conservative's saying that it's their personal opinion that homosexuality is messed up
This would be that trap I mentioned I saw in my own writing...

Quote
Taking advantage of young people is a problem because their brains aren't fully formed and their emotional maturity is not all there, not because physically they are not ready for it and attractive.
Agreed (mostly).  And that reasoning is WHY it bothers me so much. 

Listen, I'm not arguing we don't experience instincts.  Mine as far as this topic goes probably leans towards the sexist caveman protector of women.  I'm not arguing you are wrong exactly.  Probably more accurate to state that I believe we should express even more outrage because you aren't wrong.  That it is society's job to force urges, such as trying to pick up under age girls, into submission.

And for whatever reason, it makes me reject things like "they are attractive" stated as fact rather than preference.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 10:33:13 AM by D.W. »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #208 on: November 28, 2017, 10:55:01 AM »
From a political candidate point of view, doesn't the fact that a man with a law degree with political aspirations decided to troll a mall and attempt to pick up 16 year olds (regardless of the age of consent) show a significant lapse in judgement and/or self-control at a minimum?

It doesn't take an enraged self-righteousness to say, "hey, that was a really bad decision, Roy".

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #209 on: November 28, 2017, 11:33:00 AM »
There's some truth to that, there's also some truth to the idea that it happened a really long time ago, and you're talking about someone with an extensive public record to evaluate.  There's plenty of reasons to dislike Moore in his public record, including a solid record of disrespecting valid federal orders.  I don't see this being pursued because there is some mysterious risk of fatally flawed judgement stemming from actions from 30 years ago that has not shown itself in the public record over that time.  It's being pursued because it's sensational and it's a win-win politically for the left, either they get a seat in the Senate they have no business having or they get to claim the Republican party as a national matter, and every Republican in the country supports the assault of under age women.   

If the media was balanced in how they approached the situation it would help, but they are partisan and will drive this right over the cliff and keep us at each others throats, rather than acknowledge that Moore is not representative of the national party and doesn't have its support (in fact they've been openly hostile to him).  Doesn't change the fact that the voters have to choose between undermining their own beliefs and goals at the federal level and putting him in office.  Talk about disenfranchisement, where are all those who usually are up in arms on that point, too nuanced here?   Or just not important because it's politically beneficial.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #210 on: November 28, 2017, 11:53:40 AM »
All that makes sense to me Seriati.  Were I in their shoes, I'd probably vote for him with the full expectation a recall would be in the works almost instantly.  I'm pretty cynical when it comes to write-in candidates having a shot.  Is this being leveraged by the Democrats for political gains where they don't really have a shot without this scandal?  Yep.  I'd find it hard to vote for someone who would work against my political beliefs just because I felt the alternative was human garbage. 

That's how we got Trump after all.  Though, I expect it will be easier for these people to undo this choice after the threat of a Democrat upset is out of the way.  What I don't get however is the denial and defense of the man.  Just own up to not being willing to grant power to the minority political position and ask for time to sort out the mess yourselves. 

It's possible to be partisan and reasonable/moral.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #211 on: November 28, 2017, 09:57:17 PM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.

Statutory rape is exactly accurate.
From wikipedia
Quote
In some common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior).[1][2]

So if Roy Moore at age 30 something had sex with a 14 year old that would have been statutory rape. The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #212 on: November 28, 2017, 10:09:18 PM »
They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

That's not a real recourse.  The same could have been done in the Presidential election, could it have not?  Yet all that would have been doing was helping the person you thought was worse to win, by splitting your vote.

Murkowski won a write in in Alaska in when a hard core right-winger beat her in the primary. The vote did split three ways but she got the biggest piece of the pie. All you need for a write in here to get a ton of support is someone with a modicum of name recognition and a little bit of momentum. There are enough R's in Alabama that  a Republican that didn't spend their 30's aggressively chasing high school girls could win the election even if Moore kept 10-15% of voters.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #213 on: November 28, 2017, 11:34:14 PM »
The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.

You're repeating your grammatical mistake. The fact that he attempted to engage in sex, which would then have turned out to be statutory rape, does not mean he was attempting to commit statutory rape. You'd have to demonstrate that he knew her age with certainty and proceeded anyhow for your statement to be more or less accurate. And I don't even know if there's such a thing as 'attempting' what is otherwise an arbitrary a legal definition. Rape is when someone is resisting or can't consent; statutory rape is when the law determines that there was a restriction barring the interaction regardless of consent. You can't 'attempt something that the law deems to be restricted.' You attempt sex, and the law says it's counted as rape, but you're not attempting rape. In fact, I don't even know if it makes sense to even speak of attempting rape, other than the case of the stranger jumping out of the bushes, in which case it's an attempted assault/rape (where 'failure' consists of being beaten or scared off). When engaging in seemingly consensual activity there is no 'attempt' at rape, you're either raping someone (meaning you succeeded) or you're attempting sex (in which case we assume you failed and there was no rape, intended or otherwise). If it seems like I'm being pedantic I'm pushing this point because calling someone attempting to sleep with someone who happened to have been underage as attempted rape is just a way of making the scenario sound as aggressive and violent as possible. You may as well go further and say it was attempted pedophilia, right?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #214 on: November 29, 2017, 07:47:51 AM »
He attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Having sex with a 14 year old would have been statutory rape. Therefore he attempted to commit statutory rape. Statutory rape is a general term for sex without legal consent. Since a 14 year old was below the age of legal consent in Alabama, that would automatically qualify by the definition. I never used the word rape, only the more specific phrase statutory rape, which is the crime the crime he would have been guilty of had his attempts at sex been successful.

You can claim it wasn't his goal to be with an underage girl but he was certainly indifferent to the fact that he may end up with someone underage. If a frat guy mixes some benadryl with a girl's drink in order to make her pass out so he can have sex with her, he is attempting to rape her, even if her friend notices her acting weird and takes her home before the frat guy can isolate the girl and rape her. He still attempted to commit the crime, just like Roy Moore found a 14 year old girl, picked her up, took her to his house, undressed her, and attempted to get her to have "consensual" sexual relations with him. The fact that he stopped when she said no, doesn't mean he didn't attempt the act (and the act he was attempting is called statutory rape).

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #215 on: November 29, 2017, 10:14:05 AM »
He attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Having sex with a 14 year old would have been statutory rape. Therefore he attempted to commit statutory rape. Statutory rape is a general term for sex without legal consent. Since a 14 year old was below the age of legal consent in Alabama, that would automatically qualify by the definition. I never used the word rape, only the more specific phrase statutory rape, which is the crime the crime he would have been guilty of had his attempts at sex been successful.

Moore is accused of  attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Moore denies this in the strongest terms possible. There is no other evidence beyond that.  You know, I don't know if Moore did this or not. All I know is there is an accusation and a denial. That's it.

How about someone accuses you of this? Would you be guilty? Are accusations against you proof?


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #216 on: November 29, 2017, 10:21:29 AM »
Yossarian, call it what it is.  If you want to call it "attempted statutory rape" then go out and find a legal code that supports you.  By definition statutory rape is an artifact of a legal code, you don't get to expand it when the actions you are complaining about have other defined names under those legal codes. 

In order for what you are saying to even make sense you'd have to be able to prove that he tried to sleep with because she was underage.  Your argument makes as much sense as charging someone with "attempted speeding" where they really wanted to go faster but their vehicle was incapable of exceeding the speed limit (you could charge them, however, with reckless driving if the facts warranted it).

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #217 on: November 29, 2017, 10:25:08 AM »
In the meantime, let's explore the latest contender for a best picture award, "Call Me By Your Name":
Quote
It's the summer of 1983, and precocious 17-year-old Elio Perlman is spending the days with his family at their 17th-century villa in Lombardy, Italy. He soon meets Oliver, a handsome doctoral student who's working as an intern for Elio's father. Amid the sun-drenched splendor of their surroundings, Elio and Oliver discover the heady beauty of awakening desire over the course of a summer that will alter their lives forever.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes, critics are gushing over it. Hollywood just loves this story of a 24 year old man having sex with an underage boy. Check out a scene from it:
Quote
Another time, Elio masturbates into a peach that he has split open, and after Oliver performs oral sex on him, he takes a bite of the peach in front of an embarrassed Elio.

How about some reviews,
Variety:
Quote
Even as he beguiles us with mystery, Guadagnino recreates Elio’s life-changing summer with such intensity that we might as well be experiencing it first-hand.
Slate:
Quote
At the end of a long bleak autumn that barely bothered to arrive—the leaves where I live merely withered, turned brown at the edges, and fell off the trees as if giving up—Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name arrives like the gift of a jar of summer fruit preserved lovingly by hand.

You get the idea.

So Moore, accused of trying to have a sexual relationship with underage girls and we are supposed to be horrified, the man is to be pilloried and never allowed to show his face again and driven from office. But, a movie about a homosexual relationship with an underage boy ... well, that's just beautiful and it's Oscar material!

 :o



D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #218 on: November 29, 2017, 10:53:03 AM »
A good comparison Crunch.  I think the response is to be horrified by both.  But that's just me. 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #219 on: November 29, 2017, 11:05:04 AM »
I don't know about the comparison but the mixed message is what I keyed on. Sex with minors is so bad that even being accused of attempting it is a career destroyer, no proof needed. But then, a movie comes out glorifying it and it's the best thing ever! So what is it, adults having sex with underage kids good or bad? Clearly, it depends ....

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #220 on: November 29, 2017, 11:33:13 AM »
Without even getting into the age differences in the two scenarios, the most important aspect for me is that Moore, a lawyer responsible for prosecuting people at the time, is alleged to have had illegal physical contact with a person under the age of consent.  If true, Moore broke the law, was not unaware that he was likely doing so, and was responsible at the time for prosecuting other people accused of the same or similar crimes.

Whereas in the movie's description, there is not even a suggestion of a crime having been committed.




Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #221 on: November 29, 2017, 11:51:49 AM »
Donald, although I know that Americans in particular tend to have an allergy to hypocrisy, I don't think the relevance of the accusations against Moore should hinge on the fact that he was a lawyer. Does anyone really believe that lawyers have taken on that job because they're morally superior to other people? If not, the criminality of a lawyer shouldn't really be considered as worse than for someone else just because they're a lawyer. Now, if their criminality is specifically in how they practice that's different because it would go into corruption, but as it stands it just means that someone who happened to be a lawyer also happened to be messed up. I'm sure there are lawyers who are drug addicts too, which makes them criminals, but I don't think anyone would argue that 'as lawyers they should have known better.' The knowledge of the law isn't going to be relevant in cases like statutory rape and drug abuse, because the general population is just as savvy as a lawyer as to the illegality there, although perhaps not to the nuts and bolts of how such things are prosecuted. If we really wanted to be cynical we might even argue that superior knowledge of such things would increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood that a person in a position of power would try to get away with it. Rather than acting as a deterrent, their special knowledge would give them an edge in knowing to what extent they could probably get away with it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #222 on: November 29, 2017, 12:31:13 PM »
Fenring - actually, someone in this long string of posts actually argued that Moore probably didn't know the 14 year old was underage.  I'm not sure where that information was gleaned, but given that Moore was a prosecutor, yes, if he acted as alleged, he was almost certainly more aware than your average Joe of the risks of wooing teenagers close to the age of consent.

This has little or nothing to do with hypocrisy (at least, that is not what my point was meant to be.) Yes, Moore, if he acted as alleged, would be a hypocritical bible thumper of the worst kind - preying on young (and in at least one case, underage) girls in his 30s, while riding Christian dog-whistle politics later in his career.  But that isn't relevant to my argument concerning the whataboutism inherent in the Crunch's latest distraction,  which is basically the left shouldn't complain about alleged criminal activity by Moore, because a movie concerning a relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old got really good reviews. Oh and they were gay (OMGROFLMAOBBQ!!!)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #223 on: November 29, 2017, 02:08:19 PM »
I don't know about the comparison but the mixed message is what I keyed on. Sex with minors is so bad that even being accused of attempting it is a career destroyer, no proof needed. But then, a movie comes out glorifying it and it's the best thing ever! So what is it, adults having sex with underage kids good or bad? Clearly, it depends ....

Apples and oranges, Crunch.

Movies have been depicting bad behavior since the beginning, and not always unsympathetically.  Remember The Public Enemy?  Ever seen The Blue LagoonAn Affair to RememberReservoir Dogs? (I still want that 10 minutes of my life back from watching the torture scene*!  >:( )  How about The Human Catapillar?  Do you think that anyone was glorifying the idea that people should be surgically attached front to back? :P  American Psycho?  How about any of the Saw movies? :P

Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.  People who are killed in movies don't really die.  People don't have real sex in movies (except for that certain class of movies which shall remain unnamed ;) ).  We are assured that no animals were hurt in the making of films.  So there is a difference between seeing a sympathetic depiction of an unreal event verses an actual, real event.

And I'm sure Call Me By Your Name wasn't glorified just because it depicted sex by a man with an under-age boy.  I would think that it wasn't even the main reason, since there were probably a few others previously released movies that we don't even remember and/or were not praised at the time.

You also seem to be conflating Hollywood with Liberals in general (or perhaps anyone who is criticizing Roy Moore for this scandal).  What makes you think everyone who hates what Roy Moore is accused of doing love this movie?  What makes you think that those who love the movie should accept Moore's purported behavior? And what makes you think those who love the movie are the only ones who are criticizing Roy Moore?
 
While I understand your distaste for hypocrites, these are not the same thing.  Movies are unreal entertainment; Moore apparently affected the lives of real people.  The two are not the same.

And while I enjoy Kill Bill, I do not vouchsafe people killing each other, regardless of how colorfully and well-choreographed they did it. ;)

*Actually, the scene only lasted about 3 minutes, but it felt like 10 at the time, so I want a full 10 back!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #224 on: November 29, 2017, 03:48:15 PM »
And now we're at a guy named Garrison Keillor. I had no idea who he was although I have heard about "Prairie Home Companion" but never listened to it. He's out of a job after being accused of inappropriate behavior.
Quote
In a statement to the Minneapolis Star Tribune Keillor wrote: "I put my hand on a woman's bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called."
If that's all that happened, it's pretty surreal that anyone would get fired. I can totally see how it happened, that it could have been a complete accident. Apologies made and accepted. But, here it is, the accusation is the conviction and Keillor has his career and reputation ruined. Is Keillor lying? Maybe, I don't know. But I do know what's out there so far isn't enough to fire the guy. Maybe more will come out.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #225 on: November 29, 2017, 03:53:13 PM »
Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.
That is a fair point and I understand what you mean. So a film with a graphic/realistic gang rape and murder scene of a 4 year old would be totally cool? Yeah, just fictional but I'm pretty sure there are very, very few that would not draw the line and say this went over it - and those that did say it was alright I'm pretty sure none of us would want to sit next to. So there's a line somewhere here and apparently sex with underage kids is not it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #226 on: November 29, 2017, 04:00:34 PM »
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal. 

I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk. 

But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #227 on: November 29, 2017, 04:20:55 PM »
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal.

I suspect he does see a difference, it was an analogy that was directly responsive to the posts on this topic claiming that him targeting legal 16-18 year old girls wasn't okay.  Seems a flimsy defense to try and claim legality makes the first situation fundamentally different on this thread.

In any event, I'm also struck by the extreme modern bias on this thread.  Age of consent in rural communities 30-40 years ago was not anywhere near the issue that it is today and the look-back really doesn't do justice to the real time issue.  I mean heck Roman Polanski is still at large and still a Hollywood darling. 

I haven't looked at the specific details on Moore in a while, but at least the initial reports I read indicated that he was dating these girls with their parents permission (accept apparently for the 14 year old who snuck out).  There was no indication that he pressured or forced anyone, or did I miss something?

Quote
I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk.

And I have several friends who married men 20 years their senior, it was creepy but still their choice.

Quote
But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?

Do you have additional information?  Last I checked he didn't "get it on." 

There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women.  We don't have a culture where people are sorry for their actions, only one where they are sorry they got caught.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #228 on: November 29, 2017, 04:26:40 PM »
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal. 
I do. Can you really not see the difference between an accusation and proof?


I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk. 

But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?
Only one of Moore's accusers was below the age of consent IIRC (do I have that right?). There is no proof of this accusation and he strongly denies it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #229 on: November 29, 2017, 04:30:11 PM »
Allegedly "getting it on" doesn't necessitate alleged penetration, you know.  It could mean lots of kissing, right up to full on coitus. But in context, it simply means getting mostly naked with and fondling a 14 year old.  It's not that hard to understand, really.

And no, there is no hypocrisy in pointing out that alleged criminal activity is completely different from legal activity between two young people, even if a 7 year age difference makes you uncomfortable.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #230 on: November 29, 2017, 04:52:37 PM »
Quote
We don't have a culture where people are sorry for their actions, only one where they are sorry they got caught.
This is the heart of the matter.  We are also at a point where “getting caught” is more likely than not.  And when that accusation or evidence gets out, it spreads at a speed and with a range like never before. 
Quote
There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women. 
Another important point.  Or two rather.  The allergy to hypocrisy is growing (to get in a likely partisan jab here), at least on the left.  So it doesn’t shock me that there is some house cleaning going on.  Err on the side of the accuser.  And Seriati is correct to bring Trump into this and the outrage around him.  A lot of this is indeed because of him. 

Here’s this man being flagrantly degrading to women, and brushing off accusations by women with pretty much zero repercussions.  But going after him while knowingly excusing equal or similar behavior by those partisans would place in “the other camp” poses a problem.  So the only way to maintain the moral high ground, when someone is wallowing in the mud without repercussions, is to set a new standard. 

I expect we’re going to see more false allegations soon though and I don’t think we can count on all news reporting or company management reviews to be as careful about getting caught up in them.  Curious to see how things progress after the first one or two big names turn up to be innocent victims of “fake news”; or rather, by plots perpetrated by those attempting to discredit the avenues by which the public stays informed.

I’m glad that this topic is receiving such attention.  I’m glad to see heads roll and look forward to what lasting changes may occur in the work place if it does continue.  But it IS politics.  So I’m trying not to look a gift horse in the mouth. 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #231 on: November 29, 2017, 04:57:12 PM »
Quote
I do. Can you really not see the difference between an accusation and proof?
Apparently, you cannot, since you brought up the movie as if it were pertinent.  As for me not seeing the difference between allegations and "proof" (I assume you mean something proven in a court of law) it sounds like you haven't actually read what I wrote, where I have consistently distinguished between what has been alleged and what are facts.
Quote
Only one of Moore's accusers was below the age of consent IIRC (do I have that right?). There is no proof of this accusation and he strongly denies it.
Again you use the word "proof" - it is not clear whether you misunderstand the concept, or whether you are unaware of the evidence of Moore's actions presented to date.  There are now at least 3 other people who have corroborated Corfman's claims (not other claims related to the other women). There is clearly a non-zero amount of evidence of her accusation.  Is it proven?  In what context?  There has been, and won't be, a criminal trial, as the statute of limitations is long past.  Whether you consider it proven depends on whether you find the evidence compelling enough to make that determination.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #232 on: November 29, 2017, 06:16:44 PM »
Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.
That is a fair point and I understand what you mean. So a film with a graphic/realistic gang rape and murder scene of a 4 year old would be totally cool? Yeah, just fictional but I'm pretty sure there are very, very few that would not draw the line and say this went over it - and those that did say it was alright I'm pretty sure none of us would want to sit next to. So there's a line somewhere here and apparently sex with underage kids is not it.

Once again you seem to be conflating fiction and reality.

I can see where a fictional depiction of sex with underage kids is acceptable, depending on the needs and quality of the story.

But I cannot see where actual sex with underage kids would be considered acceptable, no matter how many movies might depict it.

Again, apples and oranges.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #233 on: November 29, 2017, 06:34:47 PM »
To be honest I don't think the comparison between imagery in film and what goes on in actual culture is entirely odious. People are informed at this point largely by film and TV, and to an extent the press. I don't really see the 'community' as raising people like used to be the case. When you see things popularized in film you can bet people will take that as a sort of lesson, and when social scenarios are normalized in film they can become accepted in society (and vice versa). One single film doesn't make a cultural trend, but I don't think praise of certain subject matter can be entirely divorced from the culture in which the praise occurs.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #234 on: November 30, 2017, 10:34:38 AM »
Again, I'd point to the entertainment industries use of young models, with barely anyone knowing how old they are.  Did you ever watch That '70s Show?  Mila Kunis was 14 when filming started and lied to the casting directors, pretty much wasn't 18 until the 3 or 4th season.

Which isn't to mention the "Traditional" media hoopla over which female teen celebrity is turning 18 when they hit that magic number. Off-hand, I can name Britney Spears, The Olsen Twins(you know, from Full House), Mila Kunis("That 70's Show"), Miley Cyrus("Hanna Montana"), and Emma Watson("Hermione Granger")  as getting a lot of attention. I recall a number of actresses from Glee also getting a lot of press attention about "becoming legal."

True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.

Statutory rape is exactly accurate.
From wikipedia
Quote
In some common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior).[1][2]

So if Roy Moore at age 30 something had sex with a 14 year old that would have been statutory rape. The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.

Well, under current law in his state, according to:
https://www.ageofconsent.net/laws/alabama/enticing-child-to-enter-vehicle-house-etc-for-immoral-purposes

He'd qualify for "enticing child to enter vehicle, house, etc., for immoral purposes" as the definition for "child" is "under the age of consent."

Or more specifically:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/13A-6-69.htm

Quote
It shall be unlawful for any person with lascivious intent to entice, allure, persuade, or invite, or attempt to entice, allure, persuade, or invite, any child under 16 years of age to enter any vehicle, room, house, office, or other place for the purpose of proposing to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse or an act which constitutes the offense of sodomy or for the purpose of proposing the fondling or feeling of the sexual or genital parts of such child or the breast of such child, or for the purpose of committing an aggravated assault on such child, or for the purpose of proposing that such child fondle or feel the sexual or genital parts of such person.

Enacted in 1975, modified in 2005. It is classed as a "Class C Felony." Of course, the fun with such laws, as the Former FBI Director Comey liked to cite with certain laws regarding national security. "Intent matters" and a skilled lawyer, given what information is in the public domain, could make a compelling case that Moore had "no intention to fondle a person who was under age" even if some of the relevant laws themselves clearly state ignorance is no excuse. How successful they'd be arguing that is another matter. (This also ignores Moore's denials)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #235 on: November 30, 2017, 10:48:31 AM »
In the meantime, let's explore the latest contender for a best picture award, "Call Me By Your Name":
Quote
It's the summer of 1983, and precocious 17-year-old Elio Perlman is spending the days with his family at their 17th-century villa in Lombardy, Italy. He soon meets Oliver, a handsome doctoral student who's working as an intern for Elio's father. Amid the sun-drenched splendor of their surroundings, Elio and Oliver discover the heady beauty of awakening desire over the course of a summer that will alter their lives forever.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes, critics are gushing over it. Hollywood just loves this story of a 24 year old man having sex with an underage boy.

Underage in what country? A 17YO isn't even underage in much of the United States. (They just have a Federal Law that prevents them from showing certain activities involving the under-18 crowd)

Italy's current age of consent is 14(* in most cases, if "a position of authority" is involved it is 16), they also have close in age exceptions, which looks like it could bring the age of consent to as low as 10 years old, but no lower.

Much of Europe has an age of consent at 14, some going as high as 16(including the UK). Only in the case of "authority figures" do they go up to 18 years old for consent.

A 17YO engaging in sexual activities in Italy is clearly legal today, never mind 30+ years ago, when they were possibly even more permissive. (For example, Spain has 16 as its consent age now, but in the 1990's it would have been 13)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 10:51:00 AM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #236 on: November 30, 2017, 11:04:28 AM »
Once again you seem to be conflating fiction and reality.

I can see where a fictional depiction of sex with underage kids is acceptable, depending on the needs and quality of the story.

But I cannot see where actual sex with underage kids would be considered acceptable, no matter how many movies might depict it.

Again, apples and oranges.

Well, part of the problem here is we also need to establish the criteria by which a person is both "under age" and "a child" for the purposes of this discussion. This has already been brought up previously,  and at least for D.W. he seemed to be very clear in his setting the bar at 18(or possibly even older?), so that example would be a relevant example for him to address, whether or not it was relevant to you.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #237 on: November 30, 2017, 11:36:50 AM »
I seem to be an outlier on this one.  Don't think me addressing it adds much to the conversation; but since you asked...  I don't have a clear cut answer that addresses the fact that teens are going to be sexually active before I feel they are mature (and often informed) enough to make good decisions. 

I would go so far as to say I don't have much of a problem with 17-20 year olds getting it on with each other on a moral level.  To me at least 21 is as good a place as any (and better than most) to draw a line as "adult".  After that, yer stuck with other "adults".

But D.W., you just said 17-20 is OK!  What happens when that 20 year old turns 21?  Well, the 17 year old is about to turn 18...  Which explains why I feel "18 (or possibly even older)" seems to work well enough.

But as others have pointed out, being turned on by under age (under 18) girls is a thing.  I suppose I should include boys as well to keep the conversation more broad.  Also, ages very from state to state and country to country as well, with many (most?) trending even younger.  So probably I'm probably not the best person to draw moral lines in the sand for the rest of society to follow.  At least not if you want the line to remain uncrossed...

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #238 on: November 30, 2017, 01:59:57 PM »
I seem to be an outlier on this one.  Don't think me addressing it adds much to the conversation; but since you asked...  I don't have a clear cut answer that addresses the fact that teens are going to be sexually active before I feel they are mature (and often informed) enough to make good decisions.

It gets even more complicated when you actually look at the studies which involve adolescent sexuality as there are plenty of evidence suggesting positive outcomes when the adolescent is allowed to "explore their curiosity" with regards to sex and full fledged adults. Which is where people start to cringe(myself included). But this is where people also try to read more into that then they should. Operative parts: Where the adolescent is allowed to explore their curiosity on the subject(not to be confused with the adult being allowed to sate their own personal desires/interests). Of course that then ventures into other grey areas and issues with some of those studies(and requisite methodologies) being older than most would prefer to cite, and newer mandatory reporting requirements for clinicians and other health professionals, as well as current ethics board requirements due to social and legal pressures.  As well as the huge grey area of the adult being, well, the adult, and putting the proverbial brakes on when the adolescent goes somewhere they're not ready for either physically or mentally, if not both, and how you would even go about creating a ("clinical"/legal) criteria to judge by.

Which runs into the other end of the situation. On the physiological side, we have the whole "Everybody is different" and "everybody is 'ready' at different times" as well, which turns things into a subjective calculation. This present problems from a legal standpoint for numerous reasons, particularly when dealing with a prosecution scenario playing out months, if not years after the fact with specific regards to adolescents. As creating a subjective criteria that isn't a "bright line" then leaves things open to interpretation by the jury, and "He/She seemed mature for their age" becomes a viable legal escape route for any such statutory rapist, when the jury is looking at a 19YO accuser rather than the 15YO that was actually targeted.

Of course, I guess they other route is a government sanctioned means of testing/certifying people as "ready for sexual activity" either in full, or in part. While that might possibly work in some certain parts of the world, in general, and in the United States in particular, I don't see any outcome which doesn't end in total disaster with regards to such an undertaking. There are simply too many ways for it to be abused from too many sides.

Quote
I would go so far as to say I don't have much of a problem with 17-20 year olds getting it on with each other on a moral level.  To me at least 21 is as good a place as any (and better than most) to draw a line as "adult".  After that, yer stuck with other "adults".

From a strictly clinical perspective, I definitely see a strong clinical basis to ensure every teen is on some from of contraceptive, and potentially keeping it mandatory into their early 20's. As to trying to prevent them from having sex with each other, or anyone else, I think that's about on par with trying to get a dog to not bark. But the issue with that cycles back to religious freedom as the biggest issue in the room, with a number of others following not far behind.

Quote
But D.W., you just said 17-20 is OK!  What happens when that 20 year old turns 21?  Well, the 17 year old is about to turn 18...  Which explains why I feel "18 (or possibly even older)" seems to work well enough.

But as others have pointed out, being turned on by under age (under 18) girls is a thing.  I suppose I should include boys as well to keep the conversation more broad.  Also, ages very from state to state and country to country as well, with many (most?) trending even younger.  So probably I'm probably not the best person to draw moral lines in the sand for the rest of society to follow.  At least not if you want the line to remain uncrossed...

The long-term trend across the world is to increase the age for general consent, although a new trend is to also include "Romeo and Juliet" clauses into those same laws which sometimes allows for a minimum age that was lower than the law it replaced allowed for. The biggest bench mark seems to be that age of sexual consent seems to generally track with the end of compulsory education in many nations. Which goes back to age of consent trending towards a higher number, as the standard of living improves globally, so too does the global standard of education, with a resultant increase in the age of consent.

Of course, this also ignores a related potential wildcard in the form of juvenile "sexting" and how prevalent it evidently has become(with reported numbers ranging anywhere from 70 to 90+% having done so). Lawmakers aren't going to be able to continue to ignore it and leave it up to prosecutors to pursue or not at their discretion. What happens in regards to that is undoubtedly going to have ripples throughout media at large as well, since it will be very hard to craft a law for one without impacting the other, as that currently is the problem at present as a now decades old law targeting the Pronography industry has now, through the wonders of technology, turned most of our teens into flagrant violators of federal law.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #239 on: November 30, 2017, 03:04:08 PM »
Quote
There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women. 
Another important point.  Or two rather.  The allergy to hypocrisy is growing (to get in a likely partisan jab here), at least on the left.

I think it's important to remember, that politically a charge of hypocrisy is an incredibly potent tool.  The right has been subject to hits on hypocrisy charges related to sex for decades because of its insistence on claiming it has a higher standard of morality.  This has lead to periodic feeding frenzies by the left when a politician on the right fails to live up to such a standard and is caught.  The moral hypocrisy claim is particularly damaging because of the way it impacts the candidate, its a toxic claim that attacks the support of a politician's base, rather than being targeted at swing or undecided voters.  It's an attack that had the power to oust a politician from a "safe" district.  It was also an easy attack to make, when the Dems were not capable of being attacked on the same basis (can't attack a person who doesn't claim a high moral code, didn't meet one).  Effectively sex attacks were completely one sided even though the behavior was not.

What makes this really interesting, is that the morality argument now applies to the left.  After spending a decade accusing Republicans of engaging in a war on women and espousing their own moral superiority to the other side, the weight of hypocritical failures to meet that standard now apply to the politicians on the left.  They have not yet discovered, though they will, that this is an attack that will be particularly damaging on their base voters, who will have to decide whether to vote their political interest or their own morality (look at Franken's next election for example, where a young women will have to decide if she really believes it's wrong to sexually harass in all circumstances if she continues to vote for Franken).

It's absolutely not surprising to me that there is a frequent refrain from the left to not treat this as a partisan matter.  It would be incredibly damaging to them to get caught defending sex abusers like they did with Clinton, and the only real hope is either to turn on them harshly (which they haven't been willing to do) or convince everyone to overlook their hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 03:08:02 PM by Seriati »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #240 on: November 30, 2017, 04:03:57 PM »
Quote
Effectively sex attacks were completely one sided even though the behavior was not.
Mostly this criticism was related to LGBTQ issues as well as the whole sanctity of marriage arguments more often than not tied into religion.  Democrats, the far more secular of the two parties as well as more open to the LGBTQ community weren't vulnerable to this brand of hypocrisy. 

So being the party that delighted in exposing hypocrits now puts them in an interesting position.  You nailled it.  Both parties are equal offenders towards women they have influence over, or just believe they can bully or pay off to excuse their behavior.

 
Quote
It would be incredibly damaging to them to get caught defending sex abusers like they did with Clinton, and the only real hope is either to turn on them harshly (which they haven't been willing to do) or convince everyone to overlook their hypocrisy.
Side stepping the jab at Clinton, which I have mixed feelings about him being lumped into this same basket, we're going to see them turn on people.  The Democratic party is too invested in their brand as the enlightend open party defending people, not preying on exploiting or hating people who are different.  Pointing out hypocracy is who we are now.  There isn't any chance to convince people to overlook things.

That's not to say you won't hear a lot of "A is not the same thing as B!" arguments.  But, while that distinction may be important for where we draw the line of public opinion making someone unable to govern, we'll see a lot more of sacrificing people "for the greater good" when the line is blurry. 

I would point out that the "which they haven't been willing to do" is a bit out of context.  Nobody has been willing.  Not in corporate America, not in government, not in the military, not in the entertainment industry.  This (seems to be) a tectonic shift in women's rights / workplace equality.  We'll see who is and isn't willing to do anything about it moving forward.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #241 on: December 06, 2017, 12:32:50 PM »
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #242 on: December 06, 2017, 01:19:21 PM »
That depends on how competitive his seat is...  :(

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #243 on: December 06, 2017, 01:39:28 PM »
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.

Minn also has a D governor so presumably his replacement would also be a D. So other than losing someone who can run as an incumbent they lose little by him leaving the Senate.

It's the same thing if Roy Moore is expelled from the Senate. His appointed replacement would be a republican. There is less for republicans to lose (senate power wise) by seating and then expelling him than for him to lose the election.
 
If they don't get rid of him there is also political risk in aligning themselves with a christian theocrat who frequently aggressively pursued young (sometimes underage) girls while he was in his 30's.

If Moore wins the election both parties will have the same opportunity to stand on principal in getting their member expelled and replaced by a member of the same party.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #244 on: December 06, 2017, 02:52:58 PM »
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.

Minn also has a D governor so presumably his replacement would also be a D. So other than losing someone who can run as an incumbent they lose little by him leaving the Senate.

I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

That being said, if Franken is forced out without any kind of procedure other than the howling masses calling for blood, we set the stage for the howling masses to go after everyone and anyone. The Senate ethics committee should investigate as well as law enforcement. If the senate ethics committee says Franken should go, then toss him. If law enforcement says he should be arrested and charged, do it (or not as the case may be). If Franken feels he should resign before this, fine. If not, that's fine too but he'll get dragged further and further through the mud - it's his call if he wants that or wants to subject his party and consituents to that. Franken is a mean spirited and nasty little clown, I won't feel bad when he gets tossed.  But I feel badly will if he gets tossed without due process just to appease the mob. It's unfair and it's a dangerous precedent to continue setting and it will cut both ways.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 02:55:51 PM by Crunch »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #245 on: December 06, 2017, 11:50:30 PM »
I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

Crunch you've gone off the rails on this one. What on earth are you talking about? You're comparing some chasing teenage tail and taking then to his house with an idiot who made a jokey pose for the camera? The fact that Franken admitted is is now a strike against him according to you? An "ah-hah!" situation? And just what 'assault' by Franken do you even mean? The photo of him pretending to grope someone? It's a ridiculous photo for him to have taken, but what is the "assault"? Are you trying to say it's criminal assault to use an optical illusion to make it look like you're groping someone? I'll admit it's gross and I don't like it, but if you think that stacks up against possible abuse of teenagers...oh man. Just come on.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #246 on: December 07, 2017, 12:31:27 PM »
I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

Crunch you've gone off the rails on this one. What on earth are you talking about? You're comparing some chasing teenage tail and taking then to his house with an idiot who made a jokey pose for the camera? The fact that Franken admitted is is now a strike against him according to you? An "ah-hah!" situation? And just what 'assault' by Franken do you even mean? The photo of him pretending to grope someone? It's a ridiculous photo for him to have taken, but what is the "assault"? Are you trying to say it's criminal assault to use an optical illusion to make it look like you're groping someone? I'll admit it's gross and I don't like it, but if you think that stacks up against possible abuse of teenagers...oh man. Just come on.

It's in your last line "possible abuse of teenagers". Keyword, possible.

And yes, admission is a strike against Franken - why wouldn't it be? :o Confessions of wrongdoing typically are.  Many women have come forward accusing Franken, he admits it's true. Consequently, I tend to believe it's true. Why shouldn't I? I don't think Franken would admit to it if it wasn't true, I feel pretty certain about that. Was he pretending to grope her in that photo? Many have tried to make the case. Had he just finished feeling her up though? Perhaps he was just getting started? The photo is an instant, the event recorded may have occurred before or after the photo. Let me ask you this, some dude take a photo of your sleeping daughter/wife/mother/sister like this, what is your assumption when she tells you how violated she feels (as Tweeden does) and what would you expect to happen? You're not gonna just dismiss it as "pretending are you"? Surely not.

Contrast that with Moore who denies it all, aggressively. Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual - it was barely 19 years since Jerry Lee Lewis had married a 13 year old. Oh yeah, that's some creepy *censored*, no doubt about it and I'm not comfortable with it. But it wasn't criminal. The only criminal allegation is something that will never be proven, 40 years and faded memories make the he said/she said nearly worthless. If Moore admitted he assaulted the 14 year old, I'd believe him. But he hasn't.

Quick update: Franken just resigned. The howling mob took him down.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #247 on: December 07, 2017, 12:54:56 PM »
I guess the moral is: when accused of sexual assault is aggressively deny everything and slander your accusers.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #248 on: December 07, 2017, 12:56:12 PM »
Quote
Contrast that with Moore who denies it all, aggressively. Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual

Thing is, he denies a lot of the things that you've just stated were cool and fine. I could probably get past it better if he rolled out and said, "Oh yeah, that brings back some memories. I loved those young legal women, and I hung at the mall and high school football games all the time trying to get them to go out with me."

It's similar to when Clinton lied through his teeth to avoid the repercussions of his inadvisable, yet consensual relationship with Lewinsky. Is the act worse, or the lying about it? I know, I know - Moore isn't under oath. But politicians shouldn't require a legal proceeding to tell the truth.

I'm still not saying I would be cool with the idea of trolling malls and parks for 16 year olds, but at least it would be credible as opposed to the idea that at least a half dozen women are conspiring with the media to launch their fabricated story designed to bring Moore down - including the falsification of physical evidence that he knew girls he denied knowing.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #249 on: December 07, 2017, 02:51:55 PM »
I guess the moral is: when accused of sexual assault is aggressively deny everything and slander your accusers.

With that context, let’s turn to Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo. He claims to have sources that tell him CNN and Washington Post are working on a story yhst will expose 20-30 congressional members for sexual harassment. When (if) this breaks, you’re saying none of them should deny it, they have no recourse, no defense against these accusations. The accusations alone will be proof and denying them is to slander the accusers.

How did you get this idea that accusations are proof?