Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:They weren't children. ...

Thirteen is a child over here and grooming comes to mind in her case.

He had a hell of a lot of access to children, and that's all they could come up with? ...

Or all who came forward, as like you say some have dealt with it.

No doubt the surviving Beatles and the Rolling Stones will be quaking in their beds wondering if they will be next. ...

No doubt if the groupie wasn't looking for sex.

Perhaps it would have been different if Harris had actually been attractive at some point (double standards). I don't doubt that he's probably a groper. Most women have encountered them. There was never going to be a fair trial. No doubt the Ken and Kevin juries had enough Coro fans on them to ensure not guilty verdicts. ...

Undoubtedly, corrie has a past with such things.

I'm afraid I look for evidence. I'm never comfortable with witch hunts and trial by tabloid press. Rape would be one thing, and genuine paedophilia, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about completely destroying someone's life AND the lives of everyone in their family (including children), over groping. You would have to be a pretty hard nut to do that.

I agree and don't agree as as sending a hard message to the groper will hopefully dissuade any advancing onto more serious stuff but over here I think it's because they are trying to steer the public away from the more serious 'parties' that the rich and famous and assorted politicians are said to have been attending.

Arising_uk wrote:

Thirteen is a child over here and grooming comes to mind in her case.
[/quote]
That was his word against her's, and that's what happens when there's no evidence. So he was both a paedophile and not a paedophile? All the rest were adults. It does make a good headline in the tabloid rags though.

Is this proof in favor of Trump? (reminds me of Bob):

https://thinkprogress.org/amp/p/ca9c96d ... 4d7fbdad85

PhilX

The simple-minded reasoning fueling the salivation goes: if accusations against Trump are false, then accusations against Clinton are false. This reasoning eliminates any need for thought, facts, or rationality.

The collapse of Obamacare in North Carolina has been nothing short of spectacular
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/15/c ... ectacular/
“The exchanges are imploding and with health insurance being mandatory, the cost will simply be crippling to a large portion of Americans.”

Clinton aims to distract from this reality she ignores, the reality created by the current administration that she represents.

To think that Trump could EASILY have won the Presidency against someone as distrusted and hated as Hillary Clinton 'if only' he would have shown a little bit more class, restraint and intelligence. Even with these qualities in play he still would have been outrageously unconventional according to the dictates of political correctness.

Dubious wrote:To think that Trump could EASILY have won the Presidency against someone as distrusted and hated as Hillary Clinton 'if only' he would have shown a little bit more class, restraint and intelligence. Even with these qualities in play he still would have been outrageously unconventional according to the dictates of political correctness.

That's dirty American politics for you. He was never a politician, so he had no reason to watch every word he uttered throughout his life. I never thought I would favour a Republican candidate but Hillary is just so damned vile (in a seasoned politician way).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dubious wrote:To think that Trump could EASILY have won the Presidency against someone as distrusted and hated as Hillary Clinton 'if only' he would have shown a little bit more class, restraint and intelligence. Even with these qualities in play he still would have been outrageously unconventional according to the dictates of political correctness.

That's dirty American politics for you. He was never a politician, so he had no reason to watch every word he uttered throughout his life. I never thought I would favour a Republican candidate but Hillary is just so damned vile (in a seasoned politician way).

With the same kind of corrupt politics on the way and clearly getting worse - politicians being so egocentric they can't read the sign of the times - it will be very dangerous, especially in a country like the U.S. to be out in public in the future.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That was his word against her's, and that's what happens when there's no evidence. ...

But that's the point isn't it, whose word would be taken. Now for a very long time the word of the popular entertainer was taken but we know better now.

So he was both a paedophile and not a paedophile? All the rest were adults. It does make a good headline in the tabloid rags though.

Seven, eight and fifteen are not adults over here.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:... I never thought I would favour a Republican candidate but Hillary is just so damned vile (in a seasoned politician way).

What is wrong with a seasoned politician?

You really want a yahoo whose first question was where's the button?

Who has fits about a twitter comment?

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That was his word against her's, and that's what happens when there's no evidence. ...

But that's the point isn't it, whose word would be taken. Now for a very long time the word of the popular entertainer was taken but we know better now.

So he was both a paedophile and not a paedophile? All the rest were adults. It does make a good headline in the tabloid rags though.

Seven, eight and fifteen are not adults over here.

I'm sick of arguing about it. There was no evidence. I would hate to have been around you in Salem.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:... I never thought I would favour a Republican candidate but Hillary is just so damned vile (in a seasoned politician way).

What is wrong with a seasoned politician?

You really want a yahoo whose first question was where's the button?

Who has fits about a twitter comment?

Meaning she's just as vile, probably more so, but she's cunning enough not to be so open about it. Do you always have to have everything spelt out to you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm sick of arguing about it. There was no evidence. I would hate to have been around you in Salem.

There's pretty much never any evidence in such cases,if you're talking about third-party corroboration, it's why such people get away with it so easily. The thing is the tide has turned and even back then the nonce was known as such.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Meaning she's just as vile, probably more so, but she's cunning enough not to be so open about it. Do you always have to have everything spelt out to you?

Vile in what sense?

What has she actually done that you find so abhorrent?

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm sick of arguing about it. There was no evidence. I would hate to have been around you in Salem.

There's pretty much never any evidence in such cases,if you're talking about third-party corroboration, it's why such people get away with it so easily. The thing is the tide has turned and even back then the nonce was known as such.

Known as a groper of women, not a fucking paedophile!

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Meaning she's just as vile, probably more so, but she's cunning enough not to be so open about it. Do you always have to have everything spelt out to you?

Vile in what sense?

What has she actually done that you find so abhorrent?

OMG. I'm not your babysitter. Find out about these people yourself! And any links or articles I post are just ignored anyway, so go off and play with your friend bob.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 68938.html

But everyone's so agenda-driven that they ignore any facts that don't support their agenda. I could post actual wikileaks emails, but for some reason my computer won't let me go into any websites with the word 'wiki' in them (and that's not a joke). You will have to look them up if you really want to.