Poll of the Day > Roy Moore said Jewish People are going to HELL..as well as ALL NON-CHRISTIANS!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Alabama Pervert, Roy Moore launched an anti-semitic attack against Jewish Financier, George Soros and said he was going to a place where people don't accept God's "salvation are going" meaning HELL!!

The pedophile got into a row of assucations of sexually assaulting teen girls and lied about dating high schools in his 30's.

Moore described Soros as a billionaire who bankrolls liberal causes and having an agenda that's "not the American culture". He said "Soros is trying to alter the voting populous. That's true. He's pushing an agenda. And his agenda is sexual in nature. His agenda is liberal and not what Americans need. It's not American culture. Soros comes from another world that i don't identify with. I wish i could fact him, face him directly. And i'd tell him the same thing. No matter how much money he's got, he's still going to the same place that people who don't recognize God and morality and accept his salvation are going. And that's not a good place. People who don't accept God will will regret their decision. America is a Christian Nation and we will make America believe again."

An anti-moore conservative group, The Reagan Battalion called his attack on Soros "straight up anti-semitisim"

Rabbi Jack Moline of the President of Interfaith Alliance said Moore owes Soros and the entire Jewish community an apology.

But Trump and the GOP have now publicly supported Moore for the Senate Seat as they said a "conservative" will always be better than a "liberal"

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.

Moore also said that Muslims shouldn't serve in Congress referring to Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison.

Moore said the allegations were brought on by liberals who don't hold conservative values and said "They're lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered who want to change our culture. They're socialists who want to change our way of life. These are not normal people and we shall not let them be involved in our society"

Do you trust Christians like Moore? let's see what people will vote.

Moore - Pedophile

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/05/22/4705D3AD00000578-5149247-image-a-2_1512511687565.jpg

Soros -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/05/23/4705D3D700000578-5149247-Financier_and_philanthropist_George_Soros_attends_the_official_o-a-54_1512516576802.jpg

Sarah Huckabee Sanders - Pig

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/05/23/4705384800000578-5149247-_I_m_saying_he_supports_the_President_s_agenda_The_President_doe-m-53_1512516566226.jpg
---

Well, if Soros went anywhere, I'm sure it would be hell. Otherwise he didn't *actually* say hell and I lol'd at the slogan of "Make American Christian again."

Full Throttle posted...

The pedophile got into a row of assucations of sexually assaulting teen girls and lied about dating high schools in his 30's.

Again, not what a pedophile is.

Full Throttle posted...

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.

Which might proof that he knew her. What was actually in the card?

Full Throttle posted...

Would you trust a Christian Leader like Roy Moore?

Would really depend on his other qualifications.
---

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
---

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.
---

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?!
---

Full Throttle posted...

lied about dating high schools

That would be pretty weird, or maybe impressive?, if he wasn't lying.
---

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.
---

If Moore's going to Heaven, Hell can't be too bad.
---

He does know hell not real, right?
---

I mean, Soros is a shitty person, but not because he's Jewish
---

Golden Road posted...

So, do pedophiles go to hell?

Special hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI39ZkreFLE

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.
---

First of all, that's not what he said. He said that people who do not accept God's salvation will go to Hell. This is a fact in Christian theology. If you say no to God (saying no to God and saying no to His salvation are one and the same), you go to Hell. Why would you want to spend eternity with someone you rejected?

Look, people don't get dragged away in chains to Hell for doing bad things. That's not supported by any reputable Christian theologian. Rather, people willingly choose Hell when they are judged. It's not a choice God wants people to make, but it's one He respects. For a lot of people, spending eternity with God would be more painful than eternity in Hell.

Zeus posted...

Probably a good question for a biblical scholar or priest.

I'm no biblical scholar or priest, but I'll answer.

I don't think that, when Joseph married Mary, he did it out of lust. In fact, it's doubtful they ever even had intercourse, as Mary was pregnant (with Jesus) before she got married, and Joseph was already pretty old when he married her. Contrary to the Protestant belief, Mary and Joseph had Jesus and that's it.

The fact that Joseph got married to Mary in no way justifies an old man molesting underage girls.

It's important to remember that this guy isn't exactly a Catholic or Orthodox. He probably either made up his own sect/belief system, or joined a sect of Christianity that happened to support the nonsense he's spewing.
---

I don't trust any Leaders regardless of their beliefs.
---

Zeus posted...

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.

Not really, in the sense that this seems to be pretty much common knowledge, or uncommon at the least.

I'd say all christian denominations agree on this: any kind of sexual act between unmarried peoples is not okay

nesrtkfan posted...

I'd say all christian denominations agree on this: any kind of sexual act between unmarried peoples is not okay

Most probably, but not all. There are progressive denominations. It's hard to call them Christian though.
---

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.
---

Lokarin posted...

He does know hell not real, right?

Well, it's a ripoff of Hades but the concept is still there. Not as much fire, but still very unpleasant.

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.

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.
---

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?
---

Zeus defendin a racist pedophile? Shockin.
---

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.

adjl posted...

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).

There's a pretty massive fucking distinction between an actual child and a teen, which is why we have a separate word for teen. By misusing pedophile, you imply something different -- which is probably what you intentionally want to do, by falsely linking him to the automatic assumption that he's messing around with 5 y/os and 6 y/os. After all, it's a *lot* harder to get somebody outraged over an adult trying to mess around with teens.

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.

adjl posted...

Let's demonstrate: Should the allegations against him prove true, would you consider Roy Moore to be a creep?

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.

streamofthesky posted...

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.

There was touching involved which makes it assault. If there was no touching, it'd just be harassment.
---

adjl posted...

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?

It isn't evolving. That's going backwards. Definitions exist for a reason.
---

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...

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?

Wow! Just asking! Don't bite my head off!
---

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?

the buddhist can, but the non buddhist will call it something else?

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.

I'm not surprised Zus is defending this guy.
---

Zeus posted...

There was touching involved which makes it assault. If there was no touching, it'd just be harassment.

It depends. "Touching" is pretty vague. Could be either, depending on what exactly happened.

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.

We've always been at war with eastasia

any mention of religion should result in a perma ban from public office.
---

NightShift posted...

any mention of religion should result in a perma ban from public office.

Why? Are you going to discriminate based on religious affiliation who can run for public office? Atheists only? What a stupid post.
---

adjl posted...

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.

The most commonly wrong word isn't an actual definition or correct way to use a word.
---

Roy Moore has a Tina Johnson
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sad that republicans won't reject a child predator.

Well, considering that the Democrats made one president, it's an odd complaint. (Bearing in mind that Bill was accused of forcible rape of a 13 y/o whereas Roy was only accused of getting handsy with a 14 y/o)
---

adjl posted...

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.

lolwut? Your argument is wrong on countless levels. 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.

adjl posted...

<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.

...except he literally did contextualize it, which you reference right in your post. And, quite frankly, your suspicions are stupid because you're looking at a flurry of reports centering around one time then a MASSIVE gap of time without anything.

adjl posted...

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.

Which is why you should stop misusing it because the standard, readily understood definition is something else entirely. Unless you're deliberately trying to misinform people.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm not surprised Zus is defending this guy.

Didn't you literally just make excuses for a guy who ACTUALLY and indisputably raped his daughter who was younger than Roy's youngest alleged victim? The dad actually did it. We know he did it. We can prove he did it. And he did it recently.

streamofthesky posted...

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.

Nothing I said then conflicts with what I'm saying now.
---

Zeus posted...

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.

Sociology is not a more arbitrary basis than biology. Living in a society with those norms is pretty unavoidable when we're talking about a society with those norms. Go to a different country, where people tend to start living on their own during high school? Yeah, the expectations of maturity would differ. But we're not looking at a different country.

Zeus posted...

Second, the maturity leap is nowhere near as large as think.

It's the difference between not needing to have your own money to survive and needing to. That's a pretty big deal, in terms of the need to make responsible life decisions. Student loans and continued support from parents tend to mean the transition is relatively gradual, but it's still a very big difference. Somebody who completed that transition over a decade prior actively seeking out a romantic partner who hasn't started it yet is definitely no bueno.

Zeus posted...

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.

One could pretty easily argue that financial independence is the most important form of maturity here. When you get one person who's financially established picking up someone who isn't, there's always room to question whether the allure of financial support is playing a role in the latter person agreeing to the relationship. When the latter person is a minor, and the better-off person can offer them freedom from the looming threat of needing to support themselves? There's definitely a power imbalance there, and it's power imbalances that are the basis for the concept statutory rape.

That, and while different forms of maturity certainly exist, they're not entirely independent of each other, barring some considerable mental health concerns. Acting as though they typically are is pretty absurd.

Zeus posted...

Which is why you should stop misusing it because the standard, readily understood definition is something else entirely.

The standard, readily-understood definition is the vernacular one. That's what "vernacular" means. "Ephebophile" is not in the vernacular. It's a term used almost exclusively by people who are trying to downplay how creepy it is to pick up romantic partners in a high school by using pedantry to distract from the core issue, typically either because they are themselves inclined toward such behaviours, or because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with somebody they like being a creepy wanker.

Zeus posted...

Nothing I said then conflicts with what I'm saying now.

Saying? No. How you're acting? Absolutely. That was "What a creep." This is "guys, don't be so hard on him. He's not THAT much of a creep."
---

You have to have a soul to go to hell ; ^)
---

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.

GastroFan posted...

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.

Completely disagree.

There is a difference, and the politician who makes it a centerpiece of his campaign that he's a "Christian" is much worse than a non-Christian(-promoting) politician.
Because the former invariably uses his "beliefs" to justify trying to restrict the rights and scientific advancement of other people through laws against gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, teaching creationism / intelligent design alongside actual science, etc...

One who shields himself in moral righteousness and then turns out to be a complete hypocrite and criminal is far worse. At least the latter politician never claimed to be more morally pure than his opponent nor tried to strip away the rights of his fellow citizens.

GastroFan posted...

The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior

No.

GastroFan posted...

It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant

Yes.

GastroFan posted...

A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death

This isn't advisable.
---

GastroFan posted...

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.

There is a brand of Christianity out there who seem to think it is justification for all the worst aspects of their personality. They don't need to maintain any of the morality the religion espouses, like concern for the poor, but are happy to use it to justify their own bigotry.

This has nothing to do with Christians vs not Christians. This is simply about the morals, or in the case of Moore the lack of.

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.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

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.

Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil.

It's clearly not meant to equate their impact on the world. If you choose to get angry because you want to see me trying to compare other things have fun!