Guest shiloh357 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 7 hours ago, one.opinion said: In addition to Leigh Corfman, three other women have come forward to talk about Moore’s advances when they were between the ages of 16 and 18. Moore has not denied dating trend when he was in his 30s. This is legal in Alabama, but certainly indicates a pattern of behavior that supports Corfman’s claims. He hasn't addressed those yet. But this is what the Dems did to Trump. They brought out a string of women who falsely claimed he was inappropriate with them and none of it was true. Now they are doing the same dog and pony show all over again, and frankly it is getting pretty old when we have alleged "victims" that allegedly wait for 40 or 50 years to finally claim they were sexually harassed or molested or something. They were probably paid to come out make these claims. It is nothing more than political assassination. And Corfman has no credibility. But for some reason, you don't think that should matter. In your eyes, the mere allegation is the proof. How would you like to be on the receiving end of the same thing? Would you want your guilt or innocence based on evidence or on a mere allegation and nothing more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 12, 2017 55 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: How would you like to be on the receiving end of the same thing? Would you want your guilt or innocence based on evidence or on a mere allegation and nothing more? I didn't date teenagers when I was in my 30s, so I don't have to worry about it. 56 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: And Corfman has no credibility. But for some reason, you don't think that should matter. In your eyes, the mere allegation is the proof. No, her credibility certainly matters, and I have no problem investigating further before any final decisions are made. But the allegations are very serious and the possibility of wrongdoing (and possibility of illegal activity) is supported by Moore's past behavior. People need to be responsible for their own actions and blaming the mess Moore is in (if he is indeed guilty) cannot be blamed on the Democratic party. Numbers 32:23 says "But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Just now, one.opinion said: I didn't date teenagers when I was in my 30s, so I don't have to worry about it. The specific action is irrelevant. You would not want to be treated as guilty of any criminal allegation based solely on an allegation, but you apparently think that in this case, the allegation alone is sufficient as proof. Quote No, her credibility certainly matters, and I have no problem investigating further before any final decisions are made. But the allegations are very serious and the possibility of wrongdoing (and possibility of illegal activity) is supported by Moore's past behavior. People need to be responsible for their own actions and blaming the mess Moore is in (if he is indeed guilty) cannot be blamed on the Democratic party. Numbers 32:23 says "But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out." Sure they should be investigated. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your assumption of guilt before any investigation is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: What is in dispute is your assumption of guilt before any investigation is done. Let's check the facts: 1. Moore is being accused of inappropriate behavior with a 14 year old. 2. Even though Moore has no recollection of dating teens when he was in his 30s, three women have come forward to say that this is true. 3. Colleagues of Moore's claim it was common knowledge that he dated teens when he was in his 30s. True, this is not enough to assume guilt. But it is more than enough to take action until an investigation is completed. I will reiterate that although I believe some action should be taken, a thorough investigation should be conducted to establish the veracity of the account. I don't believe that this is something that can be treated as "business as usual" while just letting allegations slide. It seems as though your obvious Republican bias is preventing you from being objective. Would you be defending a Democrat with the same fervor under the same circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 54 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Let's check the facts: 1. Moore is being accused of inappropriate behavior with a 14 year old. 2. Even though Moore has no recollection of dating teens when he was in his 30s, three women have come forward to say that this is true. 3. Colleagues of Moore's claim it was common knowledge that he dated teens when he was in his 30s. True, this is not enough to assume guilt. Good, I am glad you finally admitted that. Quote But it is more than enough to take action until an investigation is completed. I will reiterate that although I believe some action should be taken, a thorough investigation should be conducted to establish the veracity of the account. Why should action be taken before guilt has been established and an investigation performed? You're basically saying, "Yeah, there is no evidence of guilt, but we need to go ahead and assume guilt anyway and treat him accordingly." Quote I don't believe that this is something that can be treated as "business as usual" while just letting allegations slide. It seems as though your obvious Republican bias is preventing you from being objective. Would you be defending a Democrat with the same fervor under the same circumstances? Why would upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty be labeled as "Republican bias?" Why is that not objective? Why is your assumption that allegations are sufficient proof without evidence "objective?" You are the one who has a problem with objectivity, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Good, I am glad you finally admitted that. I don't think I ever called for him to be thrown directly in jail, which is what should happen if he is shown to be guilty. 10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Why should action be taken before guilt has been established and an investigation performed? You're basically saying, "Yeah, there is no evidence of guilt, but we need to go ahead and assume guilt anyway and treat him accordingly." Because otherwise, it simply gets "swept under the rug" and nothing will ever be done, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. What I am saying is "These allegations are serious enough that they cannot be ignored." I don't know what the correct action should be, but it cannot be simply tossed aside. 13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Why would upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty be labeled as "Republican bias?" Why is that not objective? Why is your assumption that allegations are sufficient proof without evidence "objective?" You are the one who has a problem with objectivity, not me. Again, I'm not saying he should go directly to jail. But this cannot be overlooked. Let me ask the question again - Would you be defending a Democrat with the same fervor under the same circumstances? But maybe you are correct, I should probably thoughtfully evaluate if my disgust towards child molesters is indeed compromising my objectivity. Could you share some of writing claiming that the allegations are false? I'm having a bit of difficulty finding any other than Moore's denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I don't think I ever called for him to be thrown directly in jail, which is what should happen if he is shown to be guilty. But what kind of action should be taken at all against him before guilt has been established? Quote Because otherwise, it simply gets "swept under the rug" and nothing will ever be done, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. What I am saying is "These allegations are serious enough that they cannot be ignored." I don't know what the correct action should be, but it cannot be simply tossed aside. Did someone say they should be ignored?? Why does not ignoring his actions mean, we should taken action as if he is guilty when no evidence of guilt has been found?? I mean, would you want to be treated that way if you were accused of some kind of crime? Do you want to be on the receiving end of what you are suggesting? Quote Again, I'm not saying he should go directly to jail. But this cannot be overlooked. Let me ask the question again - Would you be defending a Democrat with the same fervor under the same circumstances? That's a red herring and I am not going to fall for that. Quote But maybe you are correct, I should probably thoughtfully evaluate if my disgust towards child molesters is indeed compromising my objectivity. Could you share some of writing claiming that the allegations are false? I'm having a bit of difficulty finding any other than Moore's denial. I have posted other threads if you look on the news forums. Being disgusted by child molesters doesn't cloud objectivity. But your rush to assume guilt because he is a conservative, Bible-believing, Republican Christian IS probably clouding your objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: But your rush to assume guilt because he is a conservative, Bible-believing, Republican Christian IS probably clouding your objectivity. This is rather comical since I am a conservative, Bible-believing, Republican Christian. I think there is a very strong chance he is guilty, not only because of the allegations, but because of his past behavior. 37 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: That's a red herring and I am not going to fall for that. That’s fine, it was a rhetorical question, anyway. 39 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I mean, would you want to be treated that way if you were accused of some kind of crime? Absolutely not, but I have not lived my life in a way that casts my professed Christianity in such doubt as Moore has. I am not blameless or free of sin, but I have not lived my life in morally gray areas as he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This is rather comical since I am a conservative, Bible-believing, Republican Christian. Yeah... sure... Quote I think there is a very strong chance he is guilty, not only because of the allegations, but because of his past behavior. What past behavior? Quote That’s fine, it was a rhetorical question, anyway. No, it wasn't rhetorical at all. Quote Absolutely not, but I have not lived my life in a way that casts my professed Christianity in such doubt as Moore has. I am not blameless or free of sin, but I have not lived my life in morally gray areas as he has. What morally gray areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: 10 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This is rather comical since I am a conservative, Bible-believing, Republican Christian. Yeah... sure... You know nothing about me, other than that I've disagreed with you from time to time. Does that somehow disqualify me from being conservative? Bible-believing? Republican? or Christian? Nope, nope, nope, and nope. 16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Quote I think there is a very strong chance he is guilty, not only because of the allegations, but because of his past behavior. What past behavior? Dating teens when you are in your 30s is bad behavior. It may be legal, but it is still bad behavior. 18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Quote That’s fine, it was a rhetorical question, anyway. No, it wasn't rhetorical at all. Sorry, it wasn't your question. And it was rhetorical because I was about 97% sure I knew the answer already. You just happened to confirm it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts