Court records suggest Roy Moore dated wife while she was still married

[Frank Cannon]

Oh, don't be coy!  You want to argue it.  Let's do it, but it will have to be on another thread.  Don't want to take this one so far off track.

LOL. Yeah. We wouldn't want to pollute this stellar thread.

[Restored]

Court records suggest Roy Moore married his wife

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

I’m in good company, then.  Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, David French, Erick Erickson, Amanda Carpenter and other solid conservatives use that exact term when referring to Moore. 

Ah,  the ole "Well other people do it too!"  defense.   So old it even has a Latin name.   "Argumentum ad populum".   


Well that's a fallacy.   It's what mindless people do,   and I would not advocate making my judgements based on the opinions of others.   I believe in weighing facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts.     

*Sits down to wait for derisive explanation of why they’re all slack-jawed morons compared to you-know-who *

How about an explanation that people should think for themselves instead of letting other people stampede them into a misjudgement?   


Years ago there was an experiment in which they would gather together this group of people to witness some staged event.   In fact,  everyone in the group except for one person was an accomplice to the experimenters.   


They would stage an event,  and then one by one they would ask the people in the group to tell them what happened.   All the accomplices would simply tell the same lie about what happened.   They would finally get around to the one person who was not "in"  on the game,  and ask them what happened.   About 90% of the time,  the "subject"  would simply go along with what the group said.   Only about 10% of the time would the subject contradict the rest of the group and say what actually did happen. 


This experiment is a window on human nature,  and the fallacy of accepting other people's opinions as your own.   



What is all the more curious is the impression you leave in your commentary.   You strike me as someone who insists on being independent of thought,  and a "damn the consequences,  i'm telling the truth"  sort of person.   


And yet here we are.    You seem to be accepting the unsubstantiated accusations at face value,  and ignoring  any influence by actual witnesses (who have put their names to their statements)   contradicting the accusers.   


The body of objective evidence does not support the conclusions that "Erick Erickson"  (a grandstanding imbecile for whom I have never had any respect.)  et al.   The body of objective evidence,  and even the long held standard of "innocent until proven guilty",   supports Moore.   

[aligncare]

And this is another aspect of this topic.    The behavior of individuals is to a large extent confined by their social conditioning.    In a society that conditions men to act chivalrous,   the men will act chivalrous.   In a society that conditions them to act like animals,  they will act like animals.   


Some are taught better,  some are not.   Those that are not are likely to misbehave.

Also, Western societies tend to evolve, even within the context of ancient texts and shared religious values, so practices change or modify with the times.

[Silver Pines]

LOL. Yeah. We wouldn't want to pollute this stellar thread.

@Frank Cannon

Lol

[Bigun]

Ah,  the ole "Well other people do it too!"  defense.   So old it even has a Latin name.   "Argumentum ad populum".   


Well that's a fallacy.   It's what mindless people do,   and I would not advocate making my judgements based on the opinions of others.   I believe in weighing facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts.     





How about an explanation that people should think for themselves instead of letting other people stampede them into a misjudgement?   


Years ago there was an experiment in which they would gather together this group of people to witness some staged event.   In fact,  everyone in the group except for one person was an accomplice to the experimenters.   


They would stage an event,  and then one by one they would ask the people in the group to tell them what happened.   All the accomplices would simply tell the same lie about what happened.   They would finally get around to the one person who was not "in"  on the game,  and ask them what happened.   About 90% of the time,  the "subject"  would simply go along with what the group said.   Only about 10% of the time would the subject contradict the rest of the group and say what actually did happen. 


This experiment is a window on human nature,  and the fallacy of accepting other people's opinions as your own.   



What is all the more curious is the impression you leave in your commentary.   You strike me as someone who insists on being independent of thought,  and a "damn the consequences,  i'm telling the truth"  sort of person.   


And yet here we are.    You seem to be accepting the unsubstantiated accusations at face value,  and ignoring  any influence by actual witnesses (who have put their names to their statements)   contradicting the accusers.   


The body of objective evidence does not support the conclusions that "Erick Erickson"  (a grandstanding imbecile for whom I have never had any respect.)  et al.   The body of objective evidence,  and even the long held standard of "innocent until proven guilty",   supports Moore.

@DiogenesLamp

I'm sorry my friend but I think you are talking WAY over the heads of your intended audience here!

[DiogenesLamp]

Atheism as practiced by the state, is deadly. You’re quite right about that.

Individual atheism, well that’s part of American liberty. Free to choose how and what you believe within the spiritual realm.

The problem with individual atheists is their need to inform others of atheism's "virtues."    They cannot help proselytizing their position to others.   They are seldom content to be an atheist or agnostic without making others aware that they consider a belief in the spiritual to be inferior intellectually.   


Have you ever known an atheist that didn't make a point to inform you that he/she was an atheist?     

They not only want to believe in the absence of the divine,   they insist on making an effort to convince others to believe this as well.   


And therein lies a problem.   Our whole social structure is based on the belief in the Divine.   Western culture is specifically based on the teachings of Christianity,  and most especially the principle that we are all equal in God's eyes.   


You attack the notion of God,  you attack the foundation of equality.    With no God,  you have to embrace the Darwinian alternative,   and then you have to acknowledge Nietzsche's arguments as valid.   


Without God as the foundation of society,  you get eugenics.    Unavoidably you get eugenics.   


People don't realize that current societal morality is based on a chain of postulates that all hinge on "God."   

[Idiot]

I'll cut ole Roy some slack here....  When did he become a Christian?  Everything before that....I'll give him a pass.  None is without sin.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

You keep saying that but you’re still arguing.

Nothing proves my point better.   It is my nature to argue.   I would rather argue than do a lot of other things.    I am a "contrarian."   :) 

I know you want to think you’re edumacating the wimmen on the great mysteries of the male body, but dude, like I said, it’s not news.

In truth,  I think I am thinking out loud more than doing anything else.    I doubt much of what I say will resonate in unreceptive minds.   


But It makes me think,  and I feel compelled to think.   Like I said,  it's in my nature. 

[mirraflake]

Why do so many men today dress like little boys in baggy shorts and tee shirts and flip flops?

I'm 55 and I wear t shirts, shorts and sneakers every day weather permitting.  When not seeing a client this is what I wear to my finance related job also...heck have visited well own clients in this garb on occasion.

I remember a freeper who said at one time jeans and tennis shoes should never be worn by anyone over age 25..only dress pants/dresses and dress type shoes. Not that freeper are ya?

@Sanguine

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, don't be coy!  You want to argue it.  Let's do it, but it will have to be on another thread.  Don't want to take this one so far off track.

That was exactly my point about it being mostly irrelevant to the main topic.   


I actually don't consider the topic to be sufficiently significant to warrant a discussion of it's own.  In the triage of topics,   there are more important things to discuss.   


It's just that people keep returning  my serve....  :) 

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

I'm sorry my friend but I think you are talking WAY over the heads of your intended audience here!

One of my inherent vices is an insistence on  treating people as equals in terms of understanding,  even when their behavior doesn't seem to warrant it.   :) 


In my view,  people have a presumption of intelligence and knowledge until proven "not guilty. "

:)   

[RoosGirl]

One of my inherent vices is an insistence on  treating people as equals in terms of understanding,  even when their behavior doesn't seem to warrant it.   :) 


In my view,  people have a presumption of intelligence and knowledge until proven "not guilty. "

:)

How wonderful of you. 

[DCPatriot]

There is no rationality when there is abject hatred and fury.  Don't expect it.

 :nometalk:

[edpc]

I'll cut ole Roy some slack here....  When did he become a Christian?  Everything before that....I'll give him a pass.  None is without sin.

[libertybele]

I'm 55 and I wear t shirts, shorts and sneakers every day weather permitting.  When not seeing a client this is what I wear to my finance related job also...heck have visited well own clients in this garb on occasion.

I remember a freeper who said at one time jeans and tennis shoes should never be worn by anyone over age 25..only dress pants/dresses and dress type shoes. Not that freeper are ya?

@Sanguine

So ... just out of curiosity I wonder what kind of shoes would then be acceptable for a 25+ year old to wear to the gym?    IMHO Jeans never go out of style you just gotta find the jeans that are best for your body type and age.  As for shoes ... depends on the weather and the occasion.  Oh ... and as for wearing white after Labor Day ... I live in Florida ... go for it!  Today, I'm wearing long jeans, a t-shirt and flip-flops ... it's sunny and 80 degrees  ... I'm leaving to have lunch in a bit and really don't see the reason to change as the majority of people are dressed just like me.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm 55 and I wear t shirts, shorts and sneakers every day weather permitting.  When not seeing a client this is what I wear to my finance related job also...heck have visited well own clients in this garb on occasion.

I remember a freeper who said at one time jeans and tennis shoes should never be worn by anyone over age 25..only dress pants/dresses and dress type shoes. Not that freeper are ya?

@Sanguine

I dress like a bum.   Almost always.   I don't respect people based on their appearance,  and I don't feel compelled to attempt to impress people with mine.   


I regard clothing as a shallow affectation that is unrelated to the actual measure of a person. 


I have no jewelry,  no tattoos,  no embellishments of any sort.   I regard all of that stuff as "primitive."   

[Sanguine]

I'm 55 and I wear t shirts, shorts and sneakers every day weather permitting.  When not seeing a client this is what I wear to my finance related job also...heck have visited well own clients in this garb on occasion.

I remember a freeper who said at one time jeans and tennis shoes should never be worn by anyone over age 25..only dress pants/dresses and dress type shoes. Not that freeper are ya?

@Sanguine

Oh, hell, no!  Dress pants and shoes.  Definitely not me.

I live in central Texas.  Jeans get put away in May, not to emerge again until late September.

But, this, boy-child-on-summer-vacation type of attire is what I find objectionable:

[Silver Pines]

Ah,  the ole "Well other people do it too!"  defense.   So old it even has a Latin name.   "Argumentum ad populum".   


Well that's a fallacy.   It's what mindless people do,   and I would not advocate making my judgements based on the opinions of others.   I believe in weighing facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts.     





How about an explanation that people should think for themselves instead of letting other people stampede them into a misjudgement?   


Years ago there was an experiment in which they would gather together this group of people to witness some staged event.   In fact,  everyone in the group except for one person was an accomplice to the experimenters.   


They would stage an event,  and then one by one they would ask the people in the group to tell them what happened.   All the accomplices would simply tell the same lie about what happened.   They would finally get around to the one person who was not "in"  on the game,  and ask them what happened.   About 90% of the time,  the "subject"  would simply go along with what the group said.   Only about 10% of the time would the subject contradict the rest of the group and say what actually did happen. 


This experiment is a window on human nature,  and the fallacy of accepting other people's opinions as your own.   



What is all the more curious is the impression you leave in your commentary.   You strike me as someone who insists on being independent of thought,  and a "damn the consequences,  i'm telling the truth"  sort of person.   


And yet here we are.    You seem to be accepting the unsubstantiated accusations at face value,  and ignoring  any influence by actual witnesses (who have put their names to their statements)   contradicting the accusers.   


The body of objective evidence does not support the conclusions that "Erick Erickson"  (a grandstanding imbecile for whom I have never had any respect.)  et al.   The body of objective evidence,  and even the long held standard of "innocent until proven guilty",   supports Moore.

@DiogenesLamp

No, you won’t be allowed to misrepresent my point. 

Long-winded lecture aside, I was responding to the attempts of a few here to portray the use of “molester” as some kind of fringe position/tactic, or outright trolling.  My point is that it’s a generally accepted conservative view that the molestation charges are credible.

If you keep yourself in a Breitbart bubble, you won’t be aware of it.

[Silver Pines]

One of my inherent vices is an insistence on  treating people as equals in terms of understanding,  even when their behavior doesn't seem to warrant it.   :) 


In my view,  people have a presumption of intelligence and knowledge until proven "not guilty. "

:)

@DiogenesLamp

Do you understand how the ping function works yet?  I think I’ve explained it three times now.

[musiclady]

@musiclady

Yes, I don’t know any men like this.  Not one.

That argument is the same put forth by Muslim men.

You are absolutely right about that.  Muslim men have no control, and everything is the woman's fault, just for being there.

None of the men I know are as weak as the argument being put forth here.   And the argument that a Christian man doesn't want to work with women because men have no self-control and are "wired" to be aggressors, is the most pathetic excuse I've ever read to keep women out of the workplace.

I'm amazed that any man would condemn his entire gender like this................... and himself.

I guess it's because he's anonymous.   

@CatherineofAragon

[mirraflake]

I have no jewelry,  no tattoos,  no embellishments of any sort.   I regard all of that stuff as "primitive."   

When I worked for my dad I had to wear a suit and tie and perfect clean shoes every day at the office. . When I took over his business i pretty much went to kaki's and button down shirts with my company name embroidered on it. He did not like it but accepted it. Last time I  wore a suit was when he died 3 years ago. ..won't even wear one to church on Christmas or Easter.

After forced to wear a suit for 25+ years  I had enough.

Like you I have no tats, jewelery, not even a watch.

@DiogenesLamp

[mirraflake]

I wear similar shorts and T shirts but not ghetto like those. Mine stop above the knee and not as baggy. I have never worn flip flops my entire life.

But, this, boy-child-on-summer-vacation type of attire is what I find objectionable:

@Sanguine

[Jazzhead]

The problem with individual atheists is their need to inform others of atheism's "virtues."    They cannot help proselytizing their position to others.   They are seldom content to be an atheist or agnostic without making others aware that they consider a belief in the spiritual to be inferior intellectually.   

That's the same criticism many have of the "religious".    It's one thing to believe in God, quite another to aggressively proselytize.    The behavior's obnoxious,  whether practiced by those who seek to convert believers or non-believers.   

[mirraflake]

Besides, he was 37 years old and still single. It's clear this is written by inside-the-beltway types who think there are all these thirtysomething single women floating around everywhere. There aren't, and if you live outside those beltways, they don't exist. I know from experience.

BS, Maybe in your small town.. Any larger city has scores of 30 something single women...many of whom are looking for marriage. Yes,  higher percentage of non marriable types than the 20's woman but plenty still out there.


I don't know a single guy who is 37 thinking dating a 20 year old woman is normal. I can say I have truthfully never met one.

@jmyrlefuller