[worry]

https://twitter.com/...669475316101120

(It's real and it's still up as of right now)

[Brujah]

Gust Hubb, on 23 November 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

When talking semantics, think this:




To me, semantics only work in the case of a truly logical audience. Otherwise, it is a battle of words where the most logic-insensitive win.

Primateus, I totally agree with you. Speaking precisely is key to nailing these bastards, in a legal setting. Otherwise, I think the only way to argue a point with "the other side" public is to find a commonality and build a dialogue on their turf.

This isn't a war over the wrongness of pedophilia. This is an argument over conservatism and liberalism; christianity and secularism; the South vs the North.

Take it from me. I am still recovering from the trauma of growing up Christian.

Were you Catholic, GH?

[Gust Hubb]

Non-denominational evangelical free

[Brujah]

Southern Baptist.


Evangelicals were the OG terrorists.

[Gust Hubb]

Og?

[Aptorian]

[Vengeance]

Morgoth, on 23 November 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

The thing about that, though, is that you don't have to argue with people who make that distinction. You don't have to convince them of anything. You aren't going to convince them of anything. They've already decided who they're willing to sacrifice to get their way.

Very true. And in an argument with such a person, it would be a waste of time. But I think it's important that the rest of us don't fall into the same pit.

Here's a story about why being precise matters.

One or two years ago here in Denmark, there was this trial where a guy was accused of rape. He was being prosecuted for drugging the girl and having sex with her while she was unconscious. During the trial, the girl testified that that wasn't what happened. She testified that she hadn't been drugged, but rather that the guy had held her down and forced himself upon her.

The guy was acquitted of all charges. It pissed people off to no end. Especially because he was obviously guilty. But here's the thing. It was the only correct verdict the court could deliver, simply because the crime he was charged with wasn't the crime he had committed.

The prosecutor hadn't been precise or specific and then provided the rapist with a way to walk free.

Now, I know it isn't exactly the same as what we're discussing. But it does emphasize my point that being precise about what you intend to argue is important.


Goodness me, I think I might be rambling.

We are not a court of law. We are not discussing specific statutes in which to prosecute anyone, nor are we in a position where such a thing would be relevant in the first place. Insisting that public discourse should be held with legal terminology is entirely nonsensical.

Also, I would very much like a link or something to the verdict you are referring to. I am pretty sure that would not have been the result in a Norwegian criminal trial, and Norway and Denmark function under much of the same legal principles.

Edit: my danish is a little rusty, but Google has failed me so far.

From what I understand you aren't drunk enough.

https://youtu.be/FqgRC5sfCaQ

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 23 November 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/...669475316101120

(It's real and it's still up as of right now)

Still up.

And the WH knows about it and is refusing to respond about it when questioned by News Outlets.

I mean, this is Peak-Trump isn't it?

[worry]

The House tax bill isn't just funneling public money to the 1%, it disincentivizes giving to charity, so much so that next year may see a drop of up to $20 billion.
http://thehill.com/p...p-to-24-billion

This post has been edited by worry: 24 November 2017 - 10:08 PM

[Nicodimas]

worry, on 24 November 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

The House tax bill isn't just funneling public money to the 1%, it disincentivizes giving to charity, so much so that next year may see a drop of up to $20 billion.
http://thehill.com/p...p-to-24-billion

The government should run charities really and just tax the citizens instead.

[Lady Bliss]

I think Roy Moore was scum, because he was actively targeting teen age girls. But to be fair, when I was 15, I dated multiple guys in their 20s because that was the crowd I rolled with. People today would call them pedophiles, but I don't know that I felt abused at the time. I don't harbor any resentment now, but this is something I'd be against for my daughter.

[Lady Bliss]

Briar King, on 25 November 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 24 November 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

I think Roy Moore was scum, because he was actively targeting teen age girls. But to be fair, when I was 15, I dated multiple guys in their 20s because that was the crowd I rolled with. People today would call them pedophiles, but I don't know that I felt abused at the time. I don't harbor any resentment now, but this is something I'd be against for my daughter.

Yep it is amazing how things are ok for US but then when you have kids those things are a big UGH FUCK NOOOO for them! I can relate to that.

Well, I wasn't pressured into anything. It sounds like the stories with Roy Moore don't add up to the sane thing. With kids today, a line has been drawn, and I agree with it, but I don't think all guys from 20 years ago should be measured with the same yardstick.

[worry]

It gets a little dicey talking about other people's personal experiences, and social circles are definitely different than patterned behavior and especially Moore's blanket predation on minors (keep in mind he was in his 30s on up, and at least on one occasion drove a 14 year old to his home in the woods a few days after meeting her, undressed her himself, and tried to coerce her into sex Link).

Regardless, it's not a 14 or 15 year old's responsibility not to date old men. It's old men's responsibility not to date 14 year olds.

[Lady Bliss]

worry, on 25 November 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

It gets a little dicey talking about other people's personal experiences, and social circles are definitely different than patterned behavior and especially Moore's blanket predation on minors (keep in mind he was in his 30s on up, and at least on one occasion drove a 14 year old to his home in the woods a few days after meeting her, undressed her himself, and tried to coerce her into sex Link).

Regardless, it's not a 14 or 15 year old's responsibility not to date old men. It's old men's responsibility not to date 14 year olds.

I agree, he was a particular creep as were many others. But I don't want to call all men out as perverts because they were dating a younger girl, years ago. Let's be fair. Societies norms have changed, but rape has never been acceptable.

This post has been edited by Lady Bliss: 25 November 2017 - 12:45 AM

[worry]

I fully agree with you that there is plenty of room for nuance in what you are describing, just saying that at a certain point the bounds become way less fuzzy.

At the same time, I don't like "historical norms" arguments in general. People know what they're doing while they're doing it, and bad social norms have more to do with empowered people taking advantage of what they can while they can than it does naivete (from owning people to dating children to using sweatshops to female circumcision to whatever). A lot of norms are just agreed upon rationalizations by the people with the power to shape them.

[Lady Bliss]

worry, on 25 November 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

I fully agree with you that there is plenty of room for nuance in what you are describing, just saying that at a certain point the bounds become way less fuzzy.

At the same time, I don't like "historical norms" arguments in general. People know what they're doing while they're doing it, and bad social norms have more to do with empowered people taking advantage of what they can while they can than it does naivete (from owning people to dating children to using sweatshops to female circumcision to whatever). A lot of norms are just agreed upon rationalizations by the people with the power to shape them.

I completely disagree with you wrt historical norms. 50 years ago, it was ok for a girl to get married, and marrying your cousin was also ok!

We evolve and we create new norms. Note gay marriage and being transgendered used to be unacceptable, but we've changed societies views there!

[worry]

I don't think what the two of us are saying is actually diametrically opposed, tbh. But let's see!

It was "ok" for a young girl to get married because the men in power wanted to marry young girls. Women (re)claiming power -- what they could, and cumulative over time -- changed the norms. I mean technically, a young boy could marry an older woman too, but that wasn't a norm for a reason. Men had power, men's will shaped the norms. All these norms change -- not through evolution -- but through bottom-up movements overturning a powerful, stubborn status quo. These women were part of society, not apart from it, and demanding their rightful place in it.

In the same way non-white people, gay people, and transgendered people aren't outside of 'society.' They are society, as much as anyone is. And by and large, they didn't find themselves unacceptable before the norms change (I know there's exceptions to the rule, and the psychological damage done by being oppressed and othered, but by and large). The norms that disadvantaged them were nothing more than power enforced.

And it's all about power, not convincing true believers they're wrong. The people with power are rarely the true believers anyway -- those are just the people they convince to do what they want, by evoking the beliefs. Jim Bakker/Pat Robertson/Joel Osteen/whoever vs. the people who attend their services and/or fork over money.

If a pro-slaver really believed a black African's natural state was servitude, he wouldn't have kept so many whips and chains around.

And I'm not claiming this dating-age stuff as an analogy to that (I know I'm being fairly far-flung), but what I am saying is that not only does a 25 or 30 year old in 2017 know a 14 year old is less powerful, more manipulable...they knew so 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago too.


TL;DR: It's not the sheer fact that "norms change" that I'm disagreeing with, because they do, for sure. My disagreement (if there is one) is with the "they know not what they do" angle of history.

This post has been edited by worry: 25 November 2017 - 02:26 AM

[worry]

Dem leadership should be strapped to rockets and shot into the sun.

[EmperorMagus]

worry, on 26 November 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

Dem leadership should be strapped to rockets and shot into the sun.

I'm as disgusted as the next person with these apologist scum, but worry, don't you think you're a wee bit too liberal with the firing squad? Discrediting allegations of harassment isn't a death row crime, nor should it be.

Now, if you wished for all these people to be kicked out of their plush government jobs and crucified in the eyes of man and god for their blatant hypocrisy...

[worry]

Well, strapping people to a rocket and firing them into the sun isn't an actual sanctioned punishment in the United States (yet), so nobody's actually at risk of meeting that fate. How do I increase my political influence?