Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:03 pm It’s now come out that Moore stayed in an interview a few months back that he first noticed his wife when she was 15 and he was in his 30s. Not sure what more needs to come out to prove this guy was into teenagers.

He made an honest woman out of her. God's work.

What's amazing is that this behavior isn't going to lose him the election, while the rest of the United States is absolutely BLOWING UP over sexual misbehaviour, both large and small.

Al Franken might lose his position for stealing a kiss and posing for a "funny" grope picture, but Moore is going to take his place despite preying on teenagers and sexual assault of minors.

Bill Clinton is under fire again, but Moore is electable? All I can say is this explains why MSD always felt like he was an absolute alien to me. If Hollywood is riddled with sexual predators, wtf is Alabama when they turn a blind eye to their own predators? Worse, they venerate them.

What has become of God's word? Because this is not it.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:43 pm

GreenGoo wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:03 pm It’s now come out that Moore stayed in an interview a few months back that he first noticed his wife when she was 15 and he was in his 30s. Not sure what more needs to come out to prove this guy was into teenagers.

He made an honest woman out of her. God's work.

What's amazing is that this behavior isn't going to lose him the election, while the rest of the United States is absolutely BLOWING UP over sexual misbehaviour, both large and small.

Al Franken might lose his position for stealing a kiss and posing for a "funny" grope picture, but Moore is going to take his place despite preying on teenagers and sexual assault of minors.

Bill Clinton is under fire again, but Moore is electable? All I can say is this explains why MSD always felt like he was an absolute alien to me. If Hollywood is riddled with sexual predators, wtf is Alabama when they turn a blind eye to their own predators? Worse, they venerate them.

What has become of God's word? Because this is not it.

You're kidding right? It wasn't until the industrial and information ages that 18 was the common age if consent. For most of western history, women's primary place was to produce and raise the most possible male children as not much more than property. Often sold or gifted in marriage as soon as puberty arrived. Juliet was 13.
While I am firmly on the side of secular modernity, it's unsurprising that the staunchly religious, backwards looking people of any nation, wouldn't be phased by grown men shopping for teenage brides. It was the norm until the modern era. Moore may be a particularly predatory case but he talks the talk of a true believer in the old order: God guns, country (state anyway), culture. That's easy to rally behind when the godless heathens trying to take yer jobs, blow up your planes, disrespect yer flags, and repossess yet taxes come knocking. And even then it's the minority. Even in Alabama, enough people aren't that entrenched in the old culture that Jones has a chance.

Sorry about the long post, wasn't really directed at you, but I keep hearing shock on all of the wave of accountability or lack thereof breaking right now. As long as we keep pretending like right now is the baseline morality of our millennia of culture, it's a disservice to our progress, and our past.

Holman wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:58 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:43 pm

GreenGoo wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:03 pm It’s now come out that Moore stayed in an interview a few months back that he first noticed his wife when she was 15 and he was in his 30s. Not sure what more needs to come out to prove this guy was into teenagers.

He made an honest woman out of her. God's work.

What's amazing is that this behavior isn't going to lose him the election, while the rest of the United States is absolutely BLOWING UP over sexual misbehaviour, both large and small.

Al Franken might lose his position for stealing a kiss and posing for a "funny" grope picture, but Moore is going to take his place despite preying on teenagers and sexual assault of minors.

Bill Clinton is under fire again, but Moore is electable? All I can say is this explains why MSD always felt like he was an absolute alien to me. If Hollywood is riddled with sexual predators, wtf is Alabama when they turn a blind eye to their own predators? Worse, they venerate them.

What has become of God's word? Because this is not it.

You're kidding right? It wasn't until the industrial and information ages that 18 was the common age if consent. For most of western history, women's primary place was to produce and raise the most possible male children as not much more than property. Often sold or gifted in marriage as soon as puberty arrived. Juliet was 13.
While I am firmly on the side of secular modernity, it's unsurprising that the staunchly religious, backwards looking people of any nation, wouldn't be phased by grown men shopping for teenage brides. It was the norm until the modern era. Moore may be a particularly predatory case but he talks the talk of a true believer in the old order: God guns, country (state anyway), culture. That's easy to rally behind when the godless heathens trying to take yer jobs, blow up your planes, disrespect yer flags, and repossess yet taxes come knocking. And even then it's the minority. Even in Alabama, enough people aren't that entrenched in the old culture that Jones has a chance.

Sorry about the long post, wasn't really directed at you, but I keep hearing shock on all of the wave of accountability or lack thereof breaking right now. As long as we keep pretending like right now is the baseline morality of our millennia of culture, it's a disservice to our progress, and our past.

But we are all alive right now. Pre-industrial norms have no more bearing on Evangelical Alabama than they do on Hipster Brooklyn or college-town Michigan.

Moore diddled a 14-year-old in 1979. In 1979 I was a rock-solid Evangelical living in Alabama with a 14-year-old sister. There is no question whatsoever that a 32-year-old trying to date my sister would have seemed creepy and weird as hell even in our church community.

The telling detail is that Moore's M.O. was to meet his dates away from their homes (around the corner, at a movie to which they both traveled separately, etc.). He claims to be a strict non-drinker but made sure to have wine for them. Etc.

Kraken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 pm Maybe the Alabamians will surprise me.

Holman wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:22 pm

Kraken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 pm Maybe the Alabamians will surprise me.

They will not. They were saner in 1979.

Holman wrote:

Kraken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 pm Maybe the Alabamians will surprise me.

They will not. They were saner in 1979.

tjg_marantz wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:26 pm https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/933067203557167105

There it is.

tjg_marantz wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:13 am https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4937733126

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:39 am It's bad when you're watching Designated Survivor (in which the President and all of Congress is blown up in an explosion leaving the Presidency in the hands of some low-level Cabinet member), and you wish it was true. At this point, I don't even need the fictional President Kiefer Sutherland. I will take the ACTUAL Kiefer Sutherland.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:43 pm You're kidding right? It wasn't until the industrial and information ages that 18 was the common age if consent. For most of western history, women's primary place was to produce and raise the most possible male children as not much more than property. Often sold or gifted in marriage as soon as puberty arrived. Juliet was 13.

Wikipedia wrote:Where in the mid-1500s in England, approximately 8 percent of women remained unmarried the inference would be that that figure was either the same or lower in the previous several centuries;[13] marriage in Medieval England appears to be a robust institution where over 90% of women married and roughly 70% of women aged 15 to 50 years were married at any given time while the other 30% were single or widows.[14]

In Yorkshire in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle twenties. In the 15th century, the average Italian bride was 18 and married a groom 10–12 years her senior. An unmarried Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the benchmark for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the average age of a contemporary English bride.[15][16]

While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time,[18] there was nonetheless great variation within Britain alone; while Lowland Scotland saw patterns similar to England, with women married in the middle twenties after a period of domestic service, the high birth rate of Highland Scotland and the Hebrides imply a lower age of marriage for the bride, possibly similar to Gaelic Ireland,[19] where Brehon Law stated that women became legally marriageable at 15 years and men at 18 years.[20]

Similarly, between 1620 and 1690 the average age of first marriage for Swedish women was roughly 20 years, approximately 70% of Swedish women aged between 15 and 50 years were married at any one time, and the proportion of single women was less than 10%, but by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 27 years and remained high with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, decreasing available land and resources for a growing population, and other factors.[14]

Similarly, Ireland's age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.47 for men where they had once been 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[21] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[22][23] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage.[24]

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:49 am

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:39 am It's bad when you're watching Designated Survivor (in which the President and all of Congress is blown up in an explosion leaving the Presidency in the hands of some low-level Cabinet member), and you wish it was true. At this point, I don't even need the fictional President Kiefer Sutherland. I will take the ACTUAL Kiefer Sutherland.

Given the cabinet appointees of this president I doubt we'd be much better off. A little maybe but not much.

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:03 am

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:49 am

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:39 am It's bad when you're watching Designated Survivor (in which the President and all of Congress is blown up in an explosion leaving the Presidency in the hands of some low-level Cabinet member), and you wish it was true. At this point, I don't even need the fictional President Kiefer Sutherland. I will take the ACTUAL Kiefer Sutherland.

Given the cabinet appointees of this president I doubt we'd be much better off. A little maybe but not much.

If this doesn't strike ultimate terror into your heart, I'm not sure what will:

President Betsey DeVos.

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:32 am

tjg_marantz wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:13 am https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4937733126

This makes absolutely zero sense. What on earth would LiAngelo Ball's issue in China have to do with Lonzo Ball's status in the NBA?

He's truly losing it.

tjg_marantz wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:13 am https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4220134401

Octavious wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:51 am I pray for the day when what he says doesn't f'n matter anymore.

Kraken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:58 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:43 pm

GreenGoo wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:03 pm It’s now come out that Moore stayed in an interview a few months back that he first noticed his wife when she was 15 and he was in his 30s. Not sure what more needs to come out to prove this guy was into teenagers.

He made an honest woman out of her. God's work.

What's amazing is that this behavior isn't going to lose him the election, while the rest of the United States is absolutely BLOWING UP over sexual misbehaviour, both large and small.

Al Franken might lose his position for stealing a kiss and posing for a "funny" grope picture, but Moore is going to take his place despite preying on teenagers and sexual assault of minors.

Bill Clinton is under fire again, but Moore is electable? All I can say is this explains why MSD always felt like he was an absolute alien to me. If Hollywood is riddled with sexual predators, wtf is Alabama when they turn a blind eye to their own predators? Worse, they venerate them.

What has become of God's word? Because this is not it.

You're kidding right? It wasn't until the industrial and information ages that 18 was the common age if consent. For most of western history, women's primary place was to produce and raise the most possible male children as not much more than property. Often sold or gifted in marriage as soon as puberty arrived. Juliet was 13.
While I am firmly on the side of secular modernity, it's unsurprising that the staunchly religious, backwards looking people of any nation, wouldn't be phased by grown men shopping for teenage brides. It was the norm until the modern era. Moore may be a particularly predatory case but he talks the talk of a true believer in the old order: God guns, country (state anyway), culture. That's easy to rally behind when the godless heathens trying to take yer jobs, blow up your planes, disrespect yer flags, and repossess yet taxes come knocking. And even then it's the minority. Even in Alabama, enough people aren't that entrenched in the old culture that Jones has a chance.

Sorry about the long post, wasn't really directed at you, but I keep hearing shock on all of the wave of accountability or lack thereof breaking right now. As long as we keep pretending like right now is the baseline morality of our millennia of culture, it's a disservice to our progress, and our past.

But we are all alive right now. Pre-industrial norms have no more bearing on Evangelical Alabama than they do on Hipster Brooklyn or college-town Michigan.

Moore diddled a 14-year-old in 1979. In 1979 I was a rock-solid Evangelical living in Alabama with a 14-year-old sister. There is no question whatsoever that a 32-year-old trying to date my sister would have seemed creepy and weird as hell even in our church community.

The telling detail is that Moore's M.O. was to meet his dates away from their homes (around the corner, at a movie to which they both traveled separately, etc.). He claims to be a strict non-drinker but made sure to have wine for them. Etc.

Higher purpose. The Democrat is pro-choice and favors gay rights. He has a history of working for civil rights. Electing him would (almost) tip the Senate into the hands of the godless. Those are far greater evils than Moore's alleged sexual peccadillos.

Maybe the Alabamians will surprise me.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:13 pm It's at least defensible to view the policy outcomes as more important than even really terrible personal crimes.

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:57 pm The "needs" of the many outweigh the crimes of the few.

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:56 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:13 pm It's at least defensible to view the policy outcomes as more important than even really terrible personal crimes.

IMHO this is at least one of the major causes that our society is fraying apart. We have sorts of competing parties who have compromised all moral authority and decency to get their policy outcomes. A race to the bottom of the barrel. We have a pedophile being defended right now. We are near the absolute bottom now. It has lead to the complete degradation of our society. We literally have one of the worst person's alive right in the United States running our country because people cared more about the SCOTUS or keeping black people down than having a decent good person leading us. In what universe is that defensible?

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:10 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:56 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:13 pm It's at least defensible to view the policy outcomes as more important than even really terrible personal crimes.

IMHO this is at least one of the major causes that our society is fraying apart. We have sorts of competing parties who have compromised all moral authority and decency to get their policy outcomes. A race to the bottom of the barrel. We have a pedophile being defended right now. We are near the absolute bottom now. It has lead to the complete degradation of our society. We literally have one of the worst person's alive right in the United States running our country because people cared more about the SCOTUS or keeping black people down than having a decent good person leading us. In what universe is that defensible?

I don't disagree exactly, but at the same time, let's say your vote would be decisive in a Senate election (very close race!), and these are essentially your choices:

(1) Senator Roy Moore, only he will belong to the same party as you and vote the same way you would;
(2) Senator Scrupulous Republican - will provide the decisive vote to repeal the ACA, causing tens of millions to lose insurance (and some thousands to ultimately die as a long-term fallout of not having health insurance), but who hasn't committed so much as a traffic violation.

Which do you choose?

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:10 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:56 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:13 pm It's at least defensible to view the policy outcomes as more important than even really terrible personal crimes.

IMHO this is at least one of the major causes that our society is fraying apart. We have sorts of competing parties who have compromised all moral authority and decency to get their policy outcomes. A race to the bottom of the barrel. We have a pedophile being defended right now. We are near the absolute bottom now. It has lead to the complete degradation of our society. We literally have one of the worst person's alive right in the United States running our country because people cared more about the SCOTUS or keeping black people down than having a decent good person leading us. In what universe is that defensible?

I don't disagree exactly, but at the same time, let's say your vote would be decisive in a Senate election (very close race!), and these are essentially your choices:

(1) Senator Roy Moore, only he will belong to the same party as you and vote the same way you would;
(2) Senator Scrupulous Republican - will provide the decisive vote to repeal the ACA, causing tens of millions to lose insurance (and some thousands to ultimately die as a long-term fallout of not having health insurance), but who hasn't committed so much as a traffic violation.

Which do you choose?

It isn't binary - there could have been pressure for Moore to withdraw. Party leaders could step up and organize a write-in campaign for Strange. There are--were probably now since they dicked around--plenty of options. Instead they chose to surrender all moral and ethical authority. What the hell does it matter if you have to pick a monster to get what you want. I personally refuse to be complicit with that. Unfortunately too many people go along and then wonder why we are up to our hips in shit.

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:38 pm You are ignoring my point to push an absolute practical. We are here because we keep accepting that only two choices exist. Do they only meaningfully exist? Maybe but the second we vote for that person we are legitimizing them. Maybe this sounds like idealism but a complete lack of idealism has cast us into the pit of hell. We have to do better and saying that the ends justifies the means only steers into this madness. I'd argue that not voting or writing in is the only moral thing to do instead of voting for Moore. Even if the write in said none of the above.

Also I disagree that a write-in is meaningless. Murkowski won a write in campaign for the Senate in *this decade*.