• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.

MateoMtnClimber said:
That logic doesn't work.

The accusations would not have been made if Moore had not run for office.

The accusations are fake because they were made as a result of Moore running for office.

You're trying to make it impossible for the allegations to be true. Even if they are true, they're just a hit job on politician and must be disregarded.

Worst of all, you don't even have any proof at all as opposed to the three dozen or more people who contributed to the story.
Click to expand...

You keep using the word "logic" but make one of the biggest logic fallacies you can make, and that is proving a negative. You can't prove a negative.
 
ecofarm said:
1. The victims didn't want to come forward for fear of retribution. They never did come forward on their own. The scandal had to be discovered and the victims assured they could come forward. They weren't waiting, they were hiding.

2. This is a run for senate and thus prompted much more investigation by the press.
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a matter that, after the Weinstein thing and how it has snowballed all over the place, it's a much safer environment to come out.
 
Fishking said:
You keep using the word "logic" but make one of the biggest logic fallacies you can make, and that is proving a negative. You can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

Proving a negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[13] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[13][14]
Click to expand...

It all depends on the claim.
 
jamesrage said:
The people who made the accusations did.SO don't sit there and pretend the timing doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

If you by "timing" you mean this was after a lot of other high profile cases of abusers being accused and Moore winning the GOP nomination to run for Senator you are correct. If you are trying to say that it makes the accusers "suspect" I don't see that at all.
 
jamesrage said:
IF it was a democrat being accused of the same thing with no evidence and no confession my stance would still be the same.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you ALWAYS believe the man in cases for sexual abuse? Why is that?
 
iguanaman said:
So you are saying you ALWAYS believe the man in cases for sexual abuse? Why is that?
Click to expand...

I am saying I want proof. Not just someone's claims. This isn't the Salem witch trials where someone says so and so is a witch and we automatically believe the accuser.
 
iguanaman said:
If you by "timing" you mean this was after a lot of other high profile cases of abusers being accused and Moore winning the GOP nomination to run for Senator you are correct. If you are trying to say that it makes the accusers "suspect" I don't see that at all.
Click to expand...
Of course not, You are a liberal and Moore is a evil republican to you who has to be taken down.
 
jamesrage said:
Of course not, You are a liberal and Moore is a evil republican to you who has to be taken down.
Click to expand...

There is little doubt that Moore is evil in many ways that have nothing to do with his party. Apparently you only care that he is a Republican so you support him no matter how repugnant he is.
 
jamesrage said:
I am saying I want proof. Not just someone's claims. This isn't the Salem witch trials where someone says so and so is a witch and we automatically believe the accuser.
Click to expand...

It is not just one claim and Moore has not really denied being with them either. Why and how would all those women make up the same story about him independently?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
"Why was it important? Presumably*because*of the timing.*Because*now."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FghEMAw&usg=AOvVaw3jDUF4jlkEpEC4OIfd8oul&cf=1

"The point of asking 'why now' is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light."

Wapo addresses (again) two important topics within the overall story.

The timing of the article is not suspicious unless a person wants it to be. There are limited reasons why a person would want the timing of the story to be suspicious.

The "prove him guilty or not guilty" argument does not hold much water for Roy Moore because he has not been charged with a crime nor will he appear before a judge and jury.

The question at this point is simply whether or not the Republican party and voters can nominate a suitable, respectable replacement for Moore's US Senate candidacy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Democrats ignored the missdeeds of Bill Clinton and others for years. Now it's the Republican's turn to ignore misdeeds.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
"Why was it important? Presumably*because*of the timing.*Because*now."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FghEMAw&usg=AOvVaw3jDUF4jlkEpEC4OIfd8oul&cf=1

"The point of asking 'why now' is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light."

Wapo addresses (again) two important topics within the overall story.

The timing of the article is not suspicious unless a person wants it to be. There are limited reasons why a person would want the timing of the story to be suspicious.

The "prove him guilty or not guilty" argument does not hold much water for Roy Moore because he has not been charged with a crime nor will he appear before a judge and jury.

The question at this point is simply whether or not the Republican party and voters can nominate a suitable, respectable replacement for Moore's US Senate candidacy.
Click to expand...

The nomination is locked

The democrats are not going to let it open back up

And to hope a late write in candidate would stand a snow balls chance in hell is just idiotic

So we will push Moore, hope he gets elected, and then mount a campaign to get rid of him

At least that way we keep the edge in the senate
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but Democrats ignored the missdeeds of Bill Clinton and others for years. Now it's the Republican's turn to ignore misdeeds.
Click to expand...
You're pitiful.

Sexual harassment being ignored by a political demographic twenty years ago, is not even close to a valid reason to excuse serial pedophilia, especially by a man that wants to outlaw particular sexual choices between consenting adults.
 
iguanaman said:
There is little doubt that Moore is evil in many ways that have nothing to do with his party. Apparently you only care that he is a Republican so you support him no matter how repugnant he is.
Click to expand...
Moore could be caught bashing his bishop outside a daycare window and many republicans would still support him.
 
jamesrage said:
What a load of crap. The only reason the accusations came out now is because Moore is running for office and its too late to switch candidates.
Click to expand...

It is a valid tactical move. At least for a democrat.

What is funny about this is the hypocritical total protonic reversal of position that occurs when something like this happens in another venue.

Cases of child marriage, including brides as young as eight-years-old, have made headlines in local and international media in recent years

"n 2010, the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-affiliated group, hired a lawyer to help a 12-year-old divorce her 80-year-old husband.
Activists at the time saw the divorce proceedings as a test case that could pave the way for introducing a minimum age for marriage.
In 2009 the Justice Minister said that there were plans to regulate the marriages of young girls after a court refused to nullify the marriage of an eight-year-old girl to a man 50 years her senior."

Saudi Arabia’s religious leader, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Asheikh, has said that he does not plan to restrict the minimum age for marriage for women to 15 years, contravening a recent proposal from the country’s Ministry of Justice.
In an interview with the Al Riyadh, reported by the Saudi Gazette, the Grand Mufti described the marriage of girls below that age as “permissible”.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
It is a valid tactical move. At least for a democrat.

What is funny about this is the hypocritical total protonic reversal of position that occurs when something like this happens in another venue.

Cases of child marriage, including brides as young as eight-years-old, have made headlines in local and international media in recent years

"n 2010, the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-affiliated group, hired a lawyer to help a 12-year-old divorce her 80-year-old husband.
Activists at the time saw the divorce proceedings as a test case that could pave the way for introducing a minimum age for marriage.
In 2009 the Justice Minister said that there were plans to regulate the marriages of young girls after a court refused to nullify the marriage of an eight-year-old girl to a man 50 years her senior."

Saudi Arabia’s religious leader, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Asheikh, has said that he does not plan to restrict the minimum age for marriage for women to 15 years, contravening a recent proposal from the country’s Ministry of Justice.
In an interview with the Al Riyadh, reported by the Saudi Gazette, the Grand Mufti described the marriage of girls below that age as “permissible”.
Click to expand...

So we agree that the Saudi's should not be buying our weapons and our President should condemn them for human and woman's rights violations. Unfortunately Trump is a money whore so let the bowing commence.

gettyimages-685748744-e1495306756252.jpg
 
iguanaman said:
So we agree that the Saudi's should not be buying our weapons and our President should condemn them for human and woman's rights violations. Unfortunately Trump is a money whore so let the bowing commence.
Click to expand...

Historic unprecedented progress has been made lately in human and women's rights in Saudi Arabia......



I am for any freedom that does not infringe upon others.

To the back of the class for you young man.
 
akyron said:
Historic unprecedented progress has been made lately in human and women's rights in Saudi Arabia......



I am for any freedom that does not infringe upon others.

To the back of the class for you young man.
Click to expand...


I thought you said the Saudi's were pedophiles? Is that a "freedom" you are for?
 
iguanaman said:
I thought you said the Saudi's were pedophiles? Is that a "freedom" you are for?
Click to expand...

eww. That's your position to defend. Not mine.

Babies don't drive.
 
akyron said:
It is a valid tactical move. At least for a democrat.

What is funny about this is the hypocritical total protonic reversal of position that occurs when something like this happens in another venue.

Cases of child marriage, including brides as young as eight-years-old, have made headlines in local and international media in recent years

"n 2010, the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-affiliated group, hired a lawyer to help a 12-year-old divorce her 80-year-old husband.
Activists at the time saw the divorce proceedings as a test case that could pave the way for introducing a minimum age for marriage.
In 2009 the Justice Minister said that there were plans to regulate the marriages of young girls after a court refused to nullify the marriage of an eight-year-old girl to a man 50 years her senior."

Saudi Arabia’s religious leader, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Asheikh, has said that he does not plan to restrict the minimum age for marriage for women to 15 years, contravening a recent proposal from the country’s Ministry of Justice.
In an interview with the Al Riyadh, reported by the Saudi Gazette, the Grand Mufti described the marriage of girls below that age as “permissible”.
Click to expand...

Not related to accusations against Moore.
 
iguanaman said:
It is not just one claim and Moore has not really denied being with them either. Why and how would all those women make up the same story about him independently?
Click to expand...

When it comes to putting people in power or keeping them out of power it isn't that hard to find a bunch of liars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom