The pedophile got into a row of assucations of sexually assaulting teen girls and lied about dating high schools in his 30's.
This comes as Moore lied about dating a 17 y/o when he was in his mid 30's but she produced a high school graduation card that came from him with a signed yearbook.
Would you trust a Christian Leader like Roy Moore?
So, do pedophiles go to hell? He sounds like one of those "everyone's going to hell" sort of people, so it'd seem strange if pedophilia, of all things, wasn't hell-worthy.
Golden Road posted...
So, do pedophiles go to hell? He sounds like one of those "everyone's going to hell" sort of people, so it'd seem strange if pedophilia, of all things, wasn't hell-worthy.
Overlooking that he's not a pedo, I believe his Mary/Joseph defense already answered that.
lied about dating high schools
Zeus posted...
Golden Road posted...
So, do pedophiles go to hell? He sounds like one of those "everyone's going to hell" sort of people, so it'd seem strange if pedophilia, of all things, wasn't hell-worthy.
Overlooking that he's not a pedo, I believe his Mary/Joseph defense already answered that.
Oh, yeah. That. "Since it was OK when Joseph married a teenager, it's totes OK for me to molest a 14-year-old girl" like what the hell?!
So, do pedophiles go to hell?
Again, not what a pedophile is.
Probably a good question for a biblical scholar or priest.
Golden Road posted...
Zeus posted...
Golden Road posted...
So, do pedophiles go to hell? He sounds like one of those "everyone's going to hell" sort of people, so it'd seem strange if pedophilia, of all things, wasn't hell-worthy.
Overlooking that he's not a pedo, I believe his Mary/Joseph defense already answered that.
Oh, yeah. That. "Since it was OK when Joseph married a teenager, it's totes OK for me to molest a 14-year-old girl" like what the hell?!
Probably a good question for a biblical scholar or priest.
I'd say all christian denominations agree on this: any kind of sexual act between unmarried peoples is not okay
Zeus posted...
Again, not what a pedophile is.
Colloquially, it is. "Ephebophilia" is only ever used by people who are trying to avoid having to believe that somebody they like is a pedo, and cling to even the most pedantic alternative they can find to that. "Pedophilia" is broadly used as a blanket term for attraction to minors.
He does know hell not real, right?
Zeus posted...
Again, not what a pedophile is.
Colloquially, it is. "Ephebophilia" is only ever used by people who are trying to avoid having to believe that somebody they like is a pedo, and cling to even the most pedantic alternative they can find to that. "Pedophilia" is broadly used as a blanket term for attraction to minors.
adjl posted...
Zeus posted...
Again, not what a pedophile is.
Colloquially, it is. "Ephebophilia" is only ever used by people who are trying to avoid having to believe that somebody they like is a pedo, and cling to even the most pedantic alternative they can find to that. "Pedophilia" is broadly used as a blanket term for attraction to minors.
Except it's flat out wrong to use it as a blanket term like that.
And if you think that the difference between a 5 y/o and a 16 y/o is merely "pedantic" then there's something very wrong with you.
Also, we've had like a dozen Roy Moore topics yet you haven't talked about Conyers retiring amid sexual assault allegations and wanting to give his seat to his son who has never held an office in his life =p
Zeus posted...
And if you think that the difference between a 5 y/o and a 16 y/o is merely "pedantic" then there's something very wrong with you.
Is that not how the distinction is used? "This guy's a pedophile! What a creep!" "Technically it's ephebophilia if the victim's a teenager, and I'm going to hope that nitpicking about this is enough to deflect from the fact that I'm not commenting on whether or not the dude's a creep." There are certainly differences, which are reflected in that statutory rape and child rape are distinct charges, but those who use the word "ephebophilia" generally aren't as interested in that distinction as they are in trying to use a label that has no vernacular negative connotations (because nobody else ever uses it).
Let's demonstrate: Should the allegations against him prove true, would you consider Roy Moore to be a creep?
Zeus posted...
Also, we've had like a dozen Roy Moore topics yet you haven't talked about Conyers retiring amid sexual assault allegations and wanting to give his seat to his son who has never held an office in his life =p
I love how Zeus feels the need to point out that abusing a 14 year old is technically a different term than a pedo b/c it's off by a year or 2, but casually replaces "sexual harassment" with "sexual assault" when talking about Conyers.
Revelation34 posted...
adjl posted...
Zeus posted...
Again, not what a pedophile is.
Colloquially, it is. "Ephebophilia" is only ever used by people who are trying to avoid having to believe that somebody they like is a pedo, and cling to even the most pedantic alternative they can find to that. "Pedophilia" is broadly used as a blanket term for attraction to minors.
Except it's flat out wrong to use it as a blanket term like that.
Do you have a better option for a blanket term? "Creepy weirdo that sleeps with minors" is a concept that does come up often enough that it could stand to have a convenient single term. "Pedophile" being the best-known term that falls under that umbrella, it's pretty understandable that it's been adopted for that broader purpose. If you've got a better option, by all means, present it and start promoting it, but until then, you should probably accept how the vernacular language is evolving.
Zeus posted...
And if you think that the difference between a 5 y/o and a 16 y/o is merely "pedantic" then there's something very wrong with you.
Is that not how the distinction is used? "This guy's a pedophile! What a creep!" "Technically it's ephebophilia if the victim's a teenager, and I'm going to hope that nitpicking about this is enough to deflect from the fact that I'm not commenting on whether or not the dude's a creep." There are certainly differences, which are reflected in that statutory rape and child rape are distinct charges, but those who use the word "ephebophilia" generally aren't as interested in that distinction as they are in trying to use a label that has no vernacular negative connotations (because nobody else ever uses it).
Let's demonstrate: Should the allegations against him prove true, would you consider Roy Moore to be a creep?
All religious people say the ones that don't follow their specific religion are going to hell (assuming it has hell). What else is new?
Lobomoon posted...
All religious people say the ones that don't follow their specific religion are going to hell (assuming it has hell). What else is new?
Catholics don't say this. Catholics say that while you might not go to Hell if you're not a Catholic, your chances of going to Hell very much decrease when you become a Catholic and practice the Faith devoutly.
Zero_Maniac posted...
Lobomoon posted...
All religious people say the ones that don't follow their specific religion are going to hell (assuming it has hell). What else is new?
Catholics don't say this. Catholics say that while you might not go to Hell if you're not a Catholic, your chances of going to Hell very much decrease when you become a Catholic and practice the Faith devoutly.
Can a Buddhist punch you in your Chakras if you don't believe in Buddhism and therefore don't have them?
Lobomoon posted...
Zero_Maniac posted...
Lobomoon posted...
All religious people say the ones that don't follow their specific religion are going to hell (assuming it has hell). What else is new?
Catholics don't say this. Catholics say that while you might not go to Hell if you're not a Catholic, your chances of going to Hell very much decrease when you become a Catholic and practice the Faith devoutly.
Can a Buddhist punch you in your Chakras if you don't believe in Buddhism and therefore don't have them?
I don't think so, but then again, I'm biased. I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't believe in things like Chakras. What's your point?
Zero_Maniac posted...
Lobomoon posted...
All religious people say the ones that don't follow their specific religion are going to hell (assuming it has hell). What else is new?
Catholics don't say this. Catholics say that while you might not go to Hell if you're not a Catholic, your chances of going to Hell very much decrease when you become a Catholic and practice the Faith devoutly.
Can a Buddhist punch you in your Chakras if you don't believe in Buddhism and therefore don't have them?
More generally, a 30+ y/o hitting on a 19 y/o or a 17 y/o has roughly the same levels of cringe. The only difference is one is legal, the other is not.
Active tense implies that he's still engaging in those kinds of behaviors. 40 years ago, he hit on girls who were a bit too young. At the time, it would have made him a bit of a creep. However, that was 40 years ago back when he was single and at a time when he could have legally married many of those girls. The only real issue is the 14 y/o's allegation which, if true, should have put him in jail for a few months. However, again, all of that was 40 years ago. If he was a creep then, he's apparently not one now.
It isn't evolving. That's going backwards.
Definitions exist for a reason.
There was touching involved which makes it assault. If there was no touching, it'd just be harassment.
I'm not surprised Zus is defending this guy.
The thing which makes his conduct egregious is that he met at least one of the alleged victims in a high school. That's all kinds of cringe.
any mention of religion should result in a perma ban from public office.
Zeus posted...
More generally, a 30+ y/o hitting on a 19 y/o or a 17 y/o has roughly the same levels of cringe. The only difference is one is legal, the other is not.
The difference is one's in high school, and one's in university or the work force. Those two years comprise a MASSIVE amount of psychological maturation, typically corresponding to a period in which a person starts living on their own and takes on some degree of financial responsibility (I guess that latter bit's a foreign concept to the trust fund kids that comprise the GOP's upper echelons, but meh). As much as the magic line of 18 is "just a number," it's a number that's been chosen because of how radically one's life usually changes around there. That's approximately when teenagers start becoming adults.
Zeus posted...
Active tense implies that he's still engaging in those kinds of behaviors. 40 years ago, he hit on girls who were a bit too young. At the time, it would have made him a bit of a creep. However, that was 40 years ago back when he was single and at a time when he could have legally married many of those girls. The only real issue is the 14 y/o's allegation which, if true, should have put him in jail for a few months. However, again, all of that was 40 years ago. If he was a creep then, he's apparently not one now.
That's a bit of a stretch, given that he hasn't actually owned up to any of the allegations. Hitting on somebody who would have been legal to marry at the time isn't particularly deplorable if you contextualize it, yet he's not doing that. Instead, he's gone on this ridiculous, unhinged tirade, and left his colleagues to use such ridiculous justifications as "Mary was a teenager Joseph married her." That leads me to suspect there are more recent skeletons hiding in that closet that can't be so easily justified. That, or he sucks at damage control, which is kind of an essential skill for a politician and that should be a major red flag that he sucks at his job.
Revelation34 posted...
It isn't evolving. That's going backwards.
Evolution is non-directional. It's simply change over time, whether think the change is beneficial or not. And again, if you've got an alternative, speak up, otherwise you don't get to complain that the niche is being filled by something you don't like.
Revelation34 posted...
Definitions exist for a reason.
And that reason is to standardize the meanings of words so that people know what other people are talking about when the word is used. That means the vernacular definition (as in the one that's most commonly used) is far, far more important than anything you'll find in a dictionary. I guarantee you've used dozens of words in the past week that don't mean the same thing now that they did a hundred years ago.
Sad that republicans won't reject a child predator.
Zeus posted...
More generally, a 30+ y/o hitting on a 19 y/o or a 17 y/o has roughly the same levels of cringe. The only difference is one is legal, the other is not.
The difference is one's in high school, and one's in university or the work force. Those two years comprise a MASSIVE amount of psychological maturation, typically corresponding to a period in which a person starts living on their own and takes on some degree of financial responsibility (I guess that latter bit's a foreign concept to the trust fund kids that comprise the GOP's upper echelons, but meh). As much as the magic line of 18 is "just a number," it's a number that's been chosen because of how radically one's life usually changes around there. That's approximately when teenagers start becoming adults.
< Zeus posted...
Active tense implies that he's still engaging in those kinds of behaviors. 40 years ago, he hit on girls who were a bit too young. At the time, it would have made him a bit of a creep. However, that was 40 years ago back when he was single and at a time when he could have legally married many of those girls. The only real issue is the 14 y/o's allegation which, if true, should have put him in jail for a few months. However, again, all of that was 40 years ago. If he was a creep then, he's apparently not one now.
That's a bit of a stretch, given that he hasn't actually owned up to any of the allegations. Hitting on somebody who would have been legal to marry at the time isn't particularly deplorable if you contextualize it, yet he's not doing that. Instead, he's gone on this ridiculous, unhinged tirade, and left his colleagues to use such ridiculous justifications as "Mary was a teenager Joseph married her." That leads me to suspect there are more recent skeletons hiding in that closet that can't be so easily justified. That, or he sucks at damage control, which is kind of an essential skill for a politician and that should be a major red flag that he sucks at his job.
Revelation34 posted...
Definitions exist for a reason.
And that reason is to standardize the meanings of words so that people know what other people are talking about when the word is used. That means the vernacular definition (as in the one that's most commonly used) is far, far more important than anything you'll find in a dictionary. I guarantee you've used dozens of words in the past week that don't mean the same thing now that they did a hundred years ago.
I'm not surprised Zus is defending this guy.
SunWuKung420 posted...
I'm not surprised Zus is defending this guy.
Well, Trump is defending Moore now, so of course Zeus is, regardless of how he previously felt.
For fun, here's how Zeus felt before his god-emperor Trump decreed that Roy Moore must win the election:
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/75974347/890094617
Zeus posted...
The thing which makes his conduct egregious is that he met at least one of the alleged victims in a high school. That's all kinds of cringe.
For starters, your two years argument isn't based on biology but instead sociology -- ie, the responsibilities thrust on youths -- which, if anything, undermines your entire argument and makes things MORE arbitrary.
Second, the maturity leap is nowhere near as large as think.
And third, and more importantly, you have different kinds of maturity. The idea that because somebody is mature in one area that they're going to automatically be mature in others is flat-out wrong.
Which is why you should stop misusing it because the standard, readily understood definition is something else entirely.
Nothing I said then conflicts with what I'm saying now.
The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant; that's what a lot of people, Roy Moore included, don't understand. A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death; so Moore's tirade is a hindrance to those Christians that are out there spreading the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection.
The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior
It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant
A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death
The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant; that's what a lot of people, Roy Moore included, don't understand. A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death; so Moore's tirade is a hindrance to those Christians that are out there spreading the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection.
Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam.
BlackScythe0 posted...
Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam.
Not an accurate analogy at all, but I'd probably get modded for explaining why.