Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[dholliday]

I see this could go on forever. Night man, enjoy the Fulham game tomorrow.

just a simple question now that only needs a yes or no...will you continue to use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

If you want to know what I think about "the lads at Charlottesville": if there were white supremacists (definition: belief in racial superiority & supporting slavery, banishment, segregation, violence of/against other races) amongst them then calling them "racists" or "nazis" is fair game, because racists & nazis are generally accepted to believe in the same thing.

But back to this very key question, which depending on how you answer will tell me a lot about the state of debate today: will you continue to use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

 

[mezzrow]

I'm not seeing any link that Trump is supporting a paedophile. The most I've found is that Roy Moore has allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by then 14 & 16 year old (and older) girls...misconduct which allegedly took place 40 years ago when he was a man in his 20's, which would make the accusers now grown women in their 50's.


- sexual attraction to 14-16 year old girls isn't paedophilia, nor even a sexual paraphilia. Paedophilia is the paraphilic sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It is one of the worst things in the world that you can accuse a person of being. A grown man attracted to teenage post-pubescent girls is an ephebophile. It's not a paraphilia, tho' it is socially unacceptable in Western societies, and illegal in many countries if sexually acted upon. I would agree any person who is acting out ephebophilia to the discomfort of teenage girls is automatically in the moral wrong and deserves all the flak. But firstly he's still not a paedophile (which is a whole other level of morally bad...like the difference between assault & murder), and secondly we'd have to be sure he's guilty before throwing the flak at him, otherwise anyone could make similar allegations...and what a mess that would be!

- allegations were made, no charges were brought. Innocent until proven guilty (see also Kavanaugh!).

- Trump accepted Moore's denials (who is now suing against defamation of character) - as no charges were brought this seems reasonable.


@Ruairi77 - assuming you were referring to Moore - it's time for my word-of-the-month again...this is a macrocosm of what's going on in how the Left see Trump. your conflating the above to mean "Trump is supporting paedophiles" is arguably more of a problem than any Trump policy. When we zoom out from the macrocosm and see hundreds-of-thousands of similar exaggerated defamations it's absolutely clear yous cannot consider yourselves in the moral right.

I'm interested what you think you gain by defaming Trump to the point that you're saying he supports paedophiles (despite that being far from the truth). You already have the agreement of your echo chamber, so you're not gaining anything there. Why do you do it? With crap like this the #resist movement loses credibility, and the pro-Trump lot feel vindicated.

Language is important. When we broaded the definition of something, the harsher end of it is softened. When alleged clumsy gropers of young women are called "paedo" then he's weighted the same as an actual paedo. The alleged groper's loss is the paedophile's gain.

So stop it! We don't want this to happen with words like paedophile, racist, nazi as these are bad terrible things and they need to stay that way.

See? Roy Moore is a troglodyte of the first order, but he's no Jimmy Savile. Repetition builds credibility for whatever we choose to believe, irrespective of truth. Brett Kavanaugh, gang rapist. That's what they'll call him. Until he dies, and then after. Clarence Thomas. Pubic hair.

Our words are no defense against the intensity of the desire to eliminate the deplorables from the field. All we do here is interrupt the circle dancing when we feel compelled to interject our thoughts. I could say more, but shouldn't.

 

[dholliday]

I could say more, but shouldn't.

Why shouldn't you? This forum is actually one of the best out there for speaking one's mind, and doing so with consideration. I used to be a regular Guardian commenter, still dabble a bit, but the problem there is since a couple of years they close threads within only a couple of hours of opening...no chance to dissect throw-away comments (which is the idea behind those swift closures, of course).

Here I go into heady detail dissecting throw-away comments, especially those of a defamation type. It might seem pointless yet I feel there's a significant factor to the state-of-debate today that's not quite fully understood (as Web 2.0 is still relatively young), but by scratching its surface maybe we can understand it a little.

 

[mezzrow]

Why shouldn't you? This forum is actually one of the best out there for speaking one's mind, and doing so with consideration. I used to be a regular Guardian commenter, still dabble a bit, but the problem there is since a couple of years they close threads within only a couple of hours of opening...no chance to dissect throw-away comments (which is the idea behind those swift closures, of course).

Here I go into heady detail dissecting throw-away comments, especially those of a defamation type. It might seem pointless yet I feel there's a significant factor to the state-of-debate today that's not fully understood yet (as Web 2.0 is still relatively young), but by scratching its surface maybe we can understand it a little.

Here's a throwaway retweet. This is in the sports section, not editorials, of USA Today, a national newspaper. His daughter is in the picture.
I hope the editors are proud of this one:

 

[SteveSC]

Here's a throwaway retweet. This is in the sports section, not editorials, of USA Today, a national newspaper. His daughter is in the picture.
I hope the editors are proud of this one:

Did you even read the article?

He himself said he could not coach girls basketball anymore they directly quoted him and asked if it was possible he could. they were simply checking if that was a valid claim. Which it turns out it isn't and they go on to defend him

They even agree with him that at first glance maybe he cannot because of this but they go to say that they asked around and the experts including the league say he is good because he passed all of the checks etc...

 

[SteveSC]

just a simple question now that only needs a yes or no...will you continue to use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

If you want to know what I think about "the lads at Charlottesville": if there were white supremacists (definition: belief in racial superiority & supporting slavery, banishment, segregation, violence of/against other races) amongst them then calling them "racists" or "nazis" is fair game, because racists & nazis are generally accepted to believe in the same thing.

But back to this very key question, which depending on how you answer will tell me a lot about the state of debate today: will you continue to use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

I would hazard a guess that the law don't distinguish between the medical and scientific definitions when it comes to sexual crimes against anyone who is considered a minor or under 18.

the crime always seems to be the same whether the minor is 6, 12, 13 or 15.

There have been many cases of men and women prosecuted for possession of child pornography or sexual assault of a minor or statutory rape etc... of girls and boys of all ages under 18 and getting the same punishment.

time in prison and a stint on the offenders list and not to be allowed near children.

i bet the average person does not care what the definitions are and as the pedophile one is the most common and the punishments are the same its easy for it to be used commonly.

does it make it right? by definition no but if you are an adult and you touch a minor who cares what the term is? Do you care so much? Would you advocate for anyone convicted then?

 

[ilikecheese]

I would hazard a guess that the law don't distinguish between the medical and scientific definitions when it comes to sexual crimes against anyone who is considered a minor or under 18.

the crime always seems to be the same whether the minor is 6, 12, 13 or 15.

There have been many cases of men and women prosecuted for possession of child pornography or sexual assault of a minor or statutory rape etc... of girls and boys of all ages under 18 and getting the same punishment.

time in prison and a stint on the offenders list and not to be allowed near children.

i bet the average person does not care what the definitions are and as the pedophile one is the most common and the punishments are the same its easy for it to be used commonly.

does it make it right? by definition no but if you are an adult and you touch a minor who cares what the term is? Do you care so much? Would you advocate for anyone convicted then?

You are wasting your time. He is so massively quick to call a foul when he thinks a line is crossed with one or two words and then defends himself to the hilt, and then further defends himself to the hilt when words like 'white' are used appropriately and he plays the racism card inappropriately. He is a contrarian and what I would categorize an internet troll.

Why would I categorize him that way? When challenged to a point that he can't rebut, or maybe understand, he resorts to showing pictures showing his frustration with his ability to understand a counterpoint.

Anyway, don't waste your time. I have wasted far too much of mine.

 

[SteveSC]

You are wasting your time. He is so massively quick to call a foul when he thinks a line is crossed with one or two words and then defends himself to the hilt, and then further defends himself to the hilt when words like 'white' are used appropriately and he plays the racism card inappropriately. He is a contrarian and what I would categorize an internet troll.

Why would I categorize him that way? When challenged to a point that he can't rebut, or maybe understand, he resorts to showing pictures showing his frustration with his ability to understand a counterpoint.

Anyway, don't waste your time. I have wasted far too much of mine.

I know. Sure he has to be to try an define a racist or a sexual predator of minors (allegedly) and defend their honor. God forbid predators and racists have their feelings hurt haha!!

When someone chooses to use definitions to justify something it tells you all you need to know.

 

[riddick]

Decreased taxes for low-earners.

That is just blatantly false. The tax relief is going to expire and EVERYONE, apart from billionaires, is going to pay more in 2020 than they did in 2016

 

[dholliday]

if you are an adult and you touch a minor who cares what the term is? Do you care so much? Would you advocate for anyone convicted then?

Because a 21-year old convicted for sleeping with his 17-year old girlfriend (or a 17-year old with his 15-year old gf) will be put in the same box as an actual paedophile...what that might do to his reputation doesn't take much imagination.

So out of principle yes I care that the correct terms are used.

You are wasting your time. He is so massively quick to call a foul when he thinks a line is crossed with one or two words and then defends himself to the hilt, and then further defends himself to the hilt when words like 'white' are used appropriately and he plays the racism card inappropriately. He is a contrarian and what I would categorize an internet troll.

Why would I categorize him that way? When challenged to a point that he can't rebut, or maybe understand, he resorts to showing pictures showing his frustration with his ability to understand a counterpoint.

Anyway, don't waste your time. I have wasted far too much of mine.

People have forgotten what troll even means, now it's just used to label someone who has different opinions to the dominant groupthink.

That's why you'll often get robot pictures from me in reply as you're a textbook example...

That is just blatantly false. The tax relief is going to expire and EVERYONE, apart from billionaires, is going to pay more in 2020 than they did in 2016

Again people feel so tempted to offer their biased reading of things, thereby missing the point by being the point itself.

I quickly found two links which contradict your claim:

https://www.politifact.com/new-york...rumps-tax-plan-do-nothing-low-income-earners/

https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/news/tax-reform-2018-explained/


Even your expiry date is false...the new brackets expire in 2025.

Have fun with your furious googling. When you're finished I'd like a response to my actual point, which if you've forgotten is the tendency of the anti-Trumps to exaggerate his negative points and ignore any positive. Something which you've handily displayed here, so thanks for that.

Here's a throwaway retweet. This is in the sports section, not editorials, of USA Today, a national newspaper. His daughter is in the picture.
I hope the editors are proud of this one:

It's horrible, isn't it?

The significant factor of Web 2.0 which isn't quite yet understood but is blatantly present is derived from orwellianism, chiefly from a book both sides of the polarised tribal divide don't understand properly...the book is 1984 and the factor is groupthink.

This thread is a version of the two-minute hate.

So it's no wonder any dissenting voices to the hate get called bad trolls in an effort to both avoid debate (avoid objective truth) and silence that dissent.

It's, as I said earlier, all grimly fascinating. I hope academia (which is also infected) will one day be able to look back on this with cool scholarly distance.

 

[SteveSC]

Because a 21-year old convicted for sleeping with his 17-year old girlfriend (or a 17-year old with his 15-year old gf) will be put in the same box as an actual paedophile...what that might do to his reputation doesn't take much imagination.

So out of principle yes I care that the correct terms are used.






It's horrible, isn't it?

The significant factor of Web 2.0 which isn't quite yet understood but is blatantly present is derived from orwellianism, chiefly from a book both sides of the polarised tribal divide don't understand properly...the book is 1984 and the factor is groupthink.

This thread is a version of the two-minute hate.

So it's no wonder any dissenting voices to the hate get called bad trolls in an effort to both avoid debate (avoid objective truth) and silence that dissent.

It's, as I said earlier, all grimly fascinating. I hope academia (which is also infected) will one day be able to look back on this with cool scholarly distance.

On the first part bad analogy.

Its legal in the US and UK and the EU for a 21 year old (over 24 may be an issue) to have sex with a 17 year old. The cut off point is 16. It is only a crime if the 17 year old lives with his or her parents and files charges for interference or endangerment to the 17 year old's welfare.

Even if convicted the 21 year old most likely would not be considered for statutory rape or sexual misconduct. It will be a lesser crime.

But anyway that wasn't my point you once again skirt your in initial point thus proving @ilikecheese correct.

As for the second part just like @mezzrow you also negated to read the fecking article where they actually defend Kavanaugh. But sure get your negative point across anyway.

Pointless discussing anything with you the people who call you a troll are correct.

 

[dholliday]

On the first part bad analogy.

Its legal in the US and UK and the EU for a 21 year old to have sex with a 17 year old. The cut off point is 16. It is only a crime if the 17 year old lives with his or her parents and files charges for interference or endangerment to the 17 year old's welfare.

Even if convicted the 21 year old most likely would not be considered for statutory rape or sexual misconduct. It will be a lesser crime.

But anyway that wasn't my point you once again skirt your in initial point thus proving @ilikecheese correct.

As for the second part just like @mezzrow you also negated to read the fecking article where they actually defend Kavanaugh. But sure get your negative point across anyway.

Pointless discussing anything with you the people who call you a troll are correct.

So you're avoiding my point (the big issue) by saying I'm avoiding your point (which is arguing detail, something I already predicted).

Now we can go round and round arguing detail, which State has which laws and which ages are kosher and which not etc...which is useful for you as it avoids you having to consider the big issue.

Let's go back to my core question to all antis in this thread: does Trump have any sound policies at all or are they all compromised & damaged in some way?

And very much related the question that @Ruairi77 has not answered: will you use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

A yes or no to both questions will do.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

So you're avoiding my point (the big issue) by saying I'm avoiding your point (which is arguing detail, something I already predicted).

Now we can go round and round arguing detail, which State has which laws and which ages are kosher and which not etc...which is useful for you as it avoids you having to consider the big issue.

Let's go back to my core question to all antis in this thread: does Trump have any sound policies at all or are they all compromised & damaged in some way?

And very much related the question that @Ruairi77 has not answered: will you use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

A yes or no to both questions will do.

"A yes or no will do"

Debate in the age of Twitter. The Trumpist's wet dream.

 

[SteveSC]

So you're avoiding my point (the big issue) by saying I'm avoiding your point (which is arguing detail, something I already predicted).

Now we can go round and round arguing detail, which State has which laws and which ages are kosher and which not etc...which is useful for you as it avoids you having to consider the big issue.

Let's go back to my core question to all antis in this thread: does Trump have any sound policies at all or are they all compromised & damaged in some way?

And very much related the question that @Ruairi77 has not answered: will you use the "Trump is supporting paedos" line?

A yes or no to both questions will do.

I could care less about those questions i never answered or questioned them nor was i addressed. That's between you and whomever you asked those questions initially. Say what you will but you got your answer from the person you asked so why carry it onto someone else. I am not that person we are different people. You just want an answer from someone so you can spout more nonsense. Sorry sir i won't play your petty game.

What i do care about you or anyone else fudging and basically using definitions to equate whats legal and whats not when those definitions are not laws or written in context.

Detail is important so is context. You continue to ignore both. But when someone answers you try turn it back on them.

You simply don't know the facts and when called out with facts this is the sort of answer you give. Again proving others correct you are full of it and simply a troll.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

These kavanaugh allegations, let's hope there is the evidence either way, but given just a week to find any. America is a mess.