• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Roy Moore and Republicans, taking the Bible literally but not seriously

Well Rob moore is a vile human being IMO and has proved that more than once. But he certainly doesnt represent Christians (I know you already pointed that out) or republicans.

As far as these allegations, well I dont know what happened but it most certainly is VERY shady. He claims that he doesnt know the 14yr old at all and would clearly remember if he did but yet with the other women he magically claims "he cant remembers" and if that happened, it did, but he always had the parents permission :shock: WTH lol

Hey maybe he is telling the truth but that alone is creepy enough and who doesnt remember dating 16-18yr olds when you are 30? riiiiiight. Again I dont know what happened but that is shady and with or without the accusations being true is is still a POS IMO :shrug:

People have voted for this nutter before and people will probably vote for him again, thats on them. lol

For a minute there I thought you were going to tell us what a fine Christian you are after bearing false witness against someone you don't even know over a situation you have no knowledge of.
 
For a minute there I thought you were going to tell us what a fine Christian you are after bearing false witness against someone you don't even know over a situation you have no knowledge of.


:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
“Take Joseph and Mary,” Zeigler said. “Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

:lamo

So ludicrous in so many ways.
 
You love examples from the OLD TESTAMENT, don't you?

One of your outdated examples: "Having rebellious children stoned to death by all the men of the city (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)."

What did Jesus tell you about that, Somerville? Jesus said, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

That effectively abolished stoning. And if you dig further in the New Testament you'll find that the only two entities who pass out capital punishment are God (Acts 5, Book of Revelation), and government (Romans 13).

You even brought up slavery again. Jesus tried to help you with that but it apparently hasn't taken. Jesus said, "love your neighbor as you love yourself." What part of that condones enslaving one's fellow man?

Please update your outdated theology.

Are you saying we should ignore Paul? The man who wrote in Ephesians 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

How about Jesus, should we blow off his parable about the "unforgiving servant" in Matthew 18
31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. It certainly reads that Jesus had no problem with the institution of slavery or torture, just not being fair with your fellow humans.

But as I was reading, I found the following passage in Matthew 19. I don't believe very many present day men who call themselves True Christians, would undergo cutting off their balls "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Yeah, let's ignore the Old Testament, despite the number of evangelical preachers and believers who say True Believers must obey the laws found therein, the New Testament has more than enough weirdness to wonder about the minds of those who wrote and edited the text over the years.
 
Are you saying we should ignore Paul? The man who wrote in Ephesians 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

How about Jesus, should we blow off his parable about the "unforgiving servant" in Matthew 18
31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. It certainly reads that Jesus had no problem with the institution of slavery or torture, just not being fair with your fellow humans.

But as I was reading, I found the following passage in Matthew 19. I don't believe very many present day men who call themselves True Christians, would undergo cutting off their balls "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".
10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Yeah, let's ignore the Old Testament, despite the number of evangelical preachers and believers who say True Believers must obey the laws found therein.

Looks like folks are free to become eunuchs. You prefer transgenders?
 
Looks like folks are free to become eunuchs. You prefer transgenders?

Yes, I believe a person who is willing to suffer the taunts and physical attacks that are all too common, to come out publically to express the gender they feel is truly theirs should be accepted as just another human being.
 
You really aren't making a strong point bringing mythology into it. I don't believe in the bible, and I'm not calling the accuser a liar, either, but the timing of her accusations, followed by the bandwagon-jumping of other women about incidents 40 years ago are suspicious, indeed.

I don't think anyone needs to be a believer in a religion to smell when something's fishy. Now, I hear a fifth woman is making accusations. The first four obviously didn't do good enough of a job, more accusations are needed.

Moore might be guilty -- I don't know -- but I also know that no one else knows either, which is why this kind of witch hunt doesn't sit well with me. To me, it wouldn't matter if it was Moore or Bill Clinton -- these kinds of accusations -- are extremely damaging and trying them in the court of public opinion is wrong, in my opinion.

In case you hadn't noticed, the timing includes a nation or world wide coming out of victims. He just happens to be one of the douchebags who got caught too late. Blame Cosby, blame Weinstein, Blame the doctor that molested all of those gymnasts for years. There is a long overdue collective voice of victims who will be heard finally, demanding whatever justice can still exist. Certain unscrupulous men will, and should, tumble from whatever place of honor they possess with a moral public, at the revelation of their sexual misconduct.

Moore is a predator by the simple nature of the relationships he seeks. He goes after children rather than actualized women. The facts that he's a republican and a Christian would be irrelevant in a perfect world where we've forgotten how to pretend there is a god who can authorize and forgive anything. In this world, though, there is a special hypocrisy that Moore represents as a member of the "values" party and a spokesman for god.

Some times, it's up to us to make it better where god fails. I applaud the women who take that first step by abandoning their own shame and placing it back where it belongs, upon the names of rapists and exploiters.

I'm glad you don't believe in supernature, now please don't tell me you don't believe in human weakness either. That one is quite easy to believe in.
 
In case you hadn't noticed, the timing includes a nation or world wide coming out of victims. He just happens to be one of the douchebags who got caught too late. Blame Cosby, blame Weinstein, Blame the doctor that molested all of those gymnasts for years. There is a long overdue collective voice of victims who will be heard finally, demanding whatever justice can still exist. Certain unscrupulous men will, and should, tumble from whatever place of honor they possess with a moral public, at the revelation of their sexual misconduct.

Moore is a predator by the simple nature of the relationships he seeks. He goes after children rather than actualized women. The facts that he's a republican and a Christian would be irrelevant in a perfect world where we've forgotten how to pretend there is a god who can authorize and forgive anything. In this world, though, there is a special hypocrisy that Moore represents as a member of the "values" party and a spokesman for god.

Some times, it's up to us to make it better where god fails. I applaud the women who take that first step by abandoning their own shame and placing it back where it belongs, upon the names of rapists and exploiters.

I'm glad you don't believe in supernature, now please don't tell me you don't believe in human weakness either. That one is quite easy to believe in.

I will also point out that the Washington Post reporter followed rumors and went to those women, rather than those women initially coming to the Washington post. They were told about it by people they had told. .. (including an ex-bf of the one who went out with him at 14). They heard the rumors and followed them down the rabbit hole.
 
BINGO!

As my kid did, in part because I am a good parent. We need to get the basics right, and that does not include waiting 40 years to put in a complain, unless you are in a coma.

I am not buying this story that Women are such a second rate gender that they cant talk till the optimal time in their whatever...which can take up to 40 years apparently.

There is a reason victims of sexual assault and harassment do not come forward. Do you understand the reasons?

I do understand why later in life a person may finally have the courage to come forward. Particularly when the person who abuses you is seeking an even more powerful position. Can you see how this might cause a sexual abuse victim who now has a bigger perspective of life to come forward?

I kept an open mind with this guy....understanding that false accusations happen.

But he is looking like he really is a creep.

It is interesting that people do not see why an very young person would not report and adult...particularly won in a position in power. That very lack of understanding is exactly why people do not come forward. Even if you come forward...it is a he said she said.....and the person in power can screw your life if there is not absolute proof.
 
There is a reason victims of sexual assault and harassment do not come forward. Do you understand the reasons?

I do understand why later in life a person may finally have the courage to come forward. Particularly when the person who abuses you is seeking an even more powerful position. Can you see how this might cause a sexual abuse victim who now has a bigger perspective of life to come forward?

I kept an open mind with this guy....understanding that false accusations happen.

But he is looking like he really is a creep.

It is interesting that people do not see why an very young person would not report and adult...particularly won in a position in power. That very lack of understanding is exactly why people do not come forward. Even if you come forward...it is a he said she said.....and the person in power can screw your life if there is not absolute proof.

I say that if you have a 14 year old daughter who has happen to her what is claimed happened here and she does not tell you about it as soon as she is able then you have failed with her.

That's what we were talking about.....have you anything to say about that?
 
In case you hadn't noticed, the timing includes a nation or world wide coming out of victims. He just happens to be one of the douchebags who got caught too late. Blame Cosby, blame Weinstein, Blame the doctor that molested all of those gymnasts for years. There is a long overdue collective voice of victims who will be heard finally, demanding whatever justice can still exist. Certain unscrupulous men will, and should, tumble from whatever place of honor they possess with a moral public, at the revelation of their sexual misconduct.

The timing is also coinciding with a rise in false reporting of sexual harassment/abuse. Do you remember the Tylenol poisonings way back when? One nut poisoned the meds and then copycats came out of the woodwork. It took a shift in safely sealing of containers to stop the copycats.

Imitation is rampant. We're seeing more and more stories of fabricated sexual events, and we should have learned by now to keep these stories on the low down until they can be verified. Remember how the nation jumped to judgement on four Duke Lacrosse players? How about the recent Rolling Stones article?

Moore is a predator by the simple nature of the relationships he seeks. He goes after children rather than actualized women. The facts that he's a republican and a Christian would be irrelevant in a perfect world where we've forgotten how to pretend there is a god who can authorize and forgive anything. In this world, though, there is a special hypocrisy that Moore represents as a member of the "values" party and a spokesman for god.

Dating, or even wanting to date, 16 and 17 year olds does not make one a predator. The fact that he is republican and Christian should be irrelevant, but for some, it's not. Until very recently, younger women sought older men for stability and security. Times have changed. Women work now and most want careers. There are many December/May marriages that still happen however, and that doesn't make the participants wrong -- it just makes them more old-fashioned than many today.

Some times, it's up to us to make it better where god fails. I applaud the women who take that first step by abandoning their own shame and placing it back where it belongs, upon the names of rapists and exploiters.

I'm glad you don't believe in supernature, now please don't tell me you don't believe in human weakness either. That one is quite easy to believe in.

Your post would be fine if you hadn't failed to address the growing number of false accusations and show how we, as as society, are supposed to be able to distinguish between real victims and copycat accusers.
 
I say that if you have a 14 year old daughter who has happen to her what is claimed happened here and she does not tell you about it as soon as she is able then you have failed with her.

That's what we were talking about.....have you anything to say about that?

You think you have that much control over what your child confides in you????

I believe my child would tell me anything. But I am not stupid enough to think that there could be secrets. Especially where the subject is sensitive - like sexuality.

I kept an open mind about him in the beginning but emphatically - based on his interviews and other workplace accounts - the evidence makes him look like a real creep and a would be felon. He should consider himself lucky that the allegations were not placed at the time. But frankly....with as much power as he yielded back then.....the girls likely just would have been slut shamed and sent to juvenile hall.
 
I will also point out that the Washington Post reporter followed rumors and went to those women, rather than those women initially coming to the Washington post. They were told about it by people they had told. .. (including an ex-bf of the one who went out with him at 14). They heard the rumors and followed them down the rabbit hole.

Who cares how the truth came out? I accept that it's possible that the victims didn't find what happened to be especially traumatic at the time. I'm reminded of the girl who ran off with her teacher recently. It doesn't matter that she was a participant, he is guilty of a crime.

Why must the facts be mitigated by a pre-existing media bias? I don't care if the National Enquirer broke the story. The only rabbit hole is the escalating rhetorical tolerance for pedophiles by the right wing.
 
Who cares how the truth came out? I accept that it's possible that the victims didn't find what happened to be especially traumatic at the time. I'm reminded of the girl who ran off with her teacher recently. It doesn't matter that she was a participant, he is guilty of a crime.

Why must the facts be mitigated by a pre-existing media bias? I don't care if the National Enquirer broke the story. The only rabbit hole is the escalating rhetorical tolerance for pedophiles by the right wing.

Well.. it matters because the way they were found confirms they are not out for publicity and gold diggers in search of money. If the original ones came forward with lawyers, that would be the accusation immediately. As such, it gives more weight to their veracity, and it counters one defense the defenders of Roy Moore can use.... although they will use that anyway.
 
Well.. it matters because the way they were found confirms they are not out for publicity and gold diggers in search of money. If the original ones came forward with lawyers, that would be the accusation immediately. As such, it gives more weight to their veracity, and it counters one defense the defenders of Roy Moore can use.... although they will use that anyway.

If you're a grown man trying to **** juvenile girls, calling them gold diggers is irrelevant to the fact that they were victims first. Those who defend Roy's pattern of sexual predation against immature females need to examine their own morality because clearly it's broken.
 
If you're a grown man trying to **** juvenile girls, calling them gold diggers is irrelevant to the fact that they were victims first. Those who defend Roy's pattern of sexual predation against immature females need to examine their own morality because clearly it's broken.

They could be lying , because they want money now, you see... or they are getting paid to come forward (see the accusations of the fake Washington post robocalls)
 
They could be lying , because they want money now, you see... or they are getting paid to come forward (see the accusations of the fake Washington post robocalls)

Anybody could be lying about anything. Are we going to only believe victims when they accuse poor people? This whole justification to dismiss victims, based upon the ability of the accused to be sued for something, is further evidence that the right wing worships wealth, primarily, and treats women like capricious whores.

I know that's not your argument but a country like ours that claims to value justice without respect to the wealth of the accused should be MORE likely to suspect the rich because, frankly, they have an advantage in the court of public opinion. They are uniquely empowered to obstruct justice and create confusion by interjecting false narratives into the equation and paying lawyers to create perpetual legal obstacles to justice.

I think that many of us are growing weary of having a classist justice system and would like to see some of these untouchables go down.
 
My daughter would have known to come to me with her tale immediately.
And yet, we know kids and teens don't tell their parents everything, and that adults don't blurt out their accounts of sexual abuse at the earliest possible moment.

For example, hundreds of children and teens were abused by Catholic priests for years, and people said nothing. In the few instances where people did speak up, the priests were just packed off to another diocese.

Similarly, people waited years before discussing their problems with Weinstein, Spacey and Franken. Many of them are only discussing it now because they know it will have the maximum impact. Does that mean they are making it up?


This is about a woman who came out of the woodwork and told a tale 40 years after it supposedly happened -- at just the moment when her target would be the most politically damaged by it.
No, actually, with Moore we're up to 9 women now, plus numerous other people talking about how Moore was booted from the Gadsen Mall for being a creep and hanging around teen girls too much. Most of the accusers, by the way, are Republicans.

Sorry dude, but an accusation is not proven false because the timing is bad for the accuser.
 
Anybody could be lying about anything. Are we going to only believe victims when they accuse poor people?
No, just when the accused are liberals....
 
Anybody could be lying about anything. Are we going to only believe victims when they accuse poor people? This whole justification to dismiss victims, based upon the ability of the accused to be sued for something, is further evidence that the right wing worships wealth, primarily, and treats women like capricious whores.

I know that's not your argument but a country like ours that claims to value justice without respect to the wealth of the accused should be MORE likely to suspect the rich because, frankly, they have an advantage in the court of public opinion. They are uniquely empowered to obstruct justice and create confusion by interjecting false narratives into the equation and paying lawyers to create perpetual legal obstacles to justice.

I think that many of us are growing weary of having a classist justice system and would like to see some of these untouchables go down.

Well, that is going to be how they are attacked by the people trying to defend the indefensible.
 
A 19 year old is still a teenager. Generally 18 & 19 year olds that date older men are accepted as normal behavior. There is some grey area for 16 & 17 year olds. Most people believe girls 15 and younger should not be dating outside their age box.
If the kissing of the 14 year old by Moore is false, then the rest of his behavior is considered normal. But most on the left will still piss and moan cuz they dont like the guys political stances.

He met her a block away from her house. He took her to his house, stripped off his clothes down to his underwear, then molested her and tried to get her to fondle him. That's more than a kiss. Even if she was willing - she was 14, and he was in his thirties. She didn't stay quiet for 40 year - there are witnesses who said she told them - but she thought it was her fault, and he had a lot of power so she never made any complaint.

Moore has said that non of the inappropriate sexual advances were true. He did say he dated a 17 yr old - but that's legal after all.

Jeff Sessions and the Governor both say they have no reason to disbelieve her story. They believe the two girls who were severely underage - they claim to be strong Christians - and they intend to vote for someone they consider to be a child sexual predator.

Yeah for those family values!

The religious aspect here is;

Will Alabama evangelicals ignore the sexual molestation allegations about Moore in order to elect a [supposed] Bible-thumper with highly negative stances on abortion and LGBT rights?

Do they even need to ignore the allegations? There are several strong Christians who believe he did what the girls say, and they still want him elected. Anyone who would vote for someone they believe to be a child molester to represent them is no longer any sort of Christian. Tlk about losing the high ground - doesn't get much lower than that.

You think you have that much control over what your child confides in you????

I believe my child would tell me anything. But I am not stupid enough to think that there could be secrets. Especially where the subject is sensitive - like sexuality.

I kept an open mind about him in the beginning but emphatically - based on his interviews and other workplace accounts - the evidence makes him look like a real creep and a would be felon. He should consider himself lucky that the allegations were not placed at the time. But frankly....with as much power as he yielded back then.....the girls likely just would have been slut shamed and sent to juvenile hall.

Agreed - a kid from a broken home and a teen waitress should have accused the DA of sexual assault because of course the courts would be neutral.

Who cares how the truth came out? I accept that it's possible that the victims didn't find what happened to be especially traumatic at the time. I'm reminded of the girl who ran off with her teacher recently. It doesn't matter that she was a participant, he is guilty of a crime.

Why must the facts be mitigated by a pre-existing media bias? I don't care if the National Enquirer broke the story. The only rabbit hole is the escalating rhetorical tolerance for pedophiles by the right wing.

By the right wing - and more so by the supposed Christians. Wedge issues are now more important than whether or not you're representative assaulted teen girls. Evangelical Christians have a moral sewer to deal with here. When this is even an issue then a religion is clearly just a political instrument.
 
He met her a block away from her house. He took her to his house, stripped off his clothes down to his underwear, then molested her and tried to get her to fondle him. That's more than a kiss. Even if she was willing - she was 14, and he was in his thirties. She didn't stay quiet for 40 year - there are witnesses who said she told them - but she thought it was her fault, and he had a lot of power so she never made any complaint.



Jeff Sessions and the Governor both say they have no reason to disbelieve her story. They believe the two girls who were severely underage - they claim to be strong Christians - and they intend to vote for someone they consider to be a child sexual predator.

Yeah for those family values!


I think what a lot of people misunderstand is that just because someone says they "have no reason to disbelieve" a story, doesn't mean they think the story is true.

Those types of comments are common and they're a practice in erring on the side of prudence.

However, a person is just as likely to have no set opinion either way -- no reason to disbelieve the accusers - and also -- no reason to disbelieve the accused.

They're covering all bases. They're covering their own butts.

Surely, you can see that.
 
I think what a lot of people misunderstand is that just because someone says they "have no reason to disbelieve" a story, doesn't mean they think the story is true.

Those types of comments are common and they're a practice in erring on the side of prudence.

However, a person is just as likely to have no set opinion either way -- no reason to disbelieve the accusers - and also -- no reason to disbelieve the accused.

They're covering all bases. They're covering their own butts.

Surely, you can see that.

Yes - it's the next step that bewilders me. If I have no reason to disbelieve the 9 accusers, then I have opened the door to the belief Moore may well be a serial child predator. I have simply decided that it doesn't matter if he is. It's more important that he votes a certain way than if he molested or tried to rape young teens.

That sincerely contradicts any notion of family values - it is the apex of moral relativism. It is everything the liberal left is accused of. Yes, both sides have their hypocrisy but this is so blatant.
 
Yes - it's the next step that bewilders me. If I have no reason to disbelieve the 9 accusers, then I have opened the door to the belief Moore may well be a serial child predator. I have simply decided that it doesn't matter if he is. It's more important that he votes a certain way than if he molested or tried to rape young teens.

That sincerely contradicts any notion of family values - it is the apex of moral relativism. It is everything the liberal left is accused of. Yes, both sides have their hypocrisy but this is so blatant.


The situation, as I see it, has nothing to do with "family values," unless a person actually believes that Moore is guilty and still votes for him. Even then, I don't think it would come under the category of family values as much as it would a general lack of respect for females.

But, yes, if you do not find yourself actively disbelieving the accusers, you've "opened the door" as you say to the idea that Moore might be guilty.

The problem here - ethically - is that might isn't a good enough premise to take action, that action, of course, being not voting for Moore if you were going to vote for him previously.

And it's not associated with moral relativism because the person who chooses to still vote for Moore has not come to an opinion that Moore is guilty, and votes anyway, but rather has chosen not to condemn him based on accusations that may or may not be true. That's not moral relativism -- you're using the term incorrectly.

As a society, we've evolved (well, some of us) to the extent where we don't grab the "witch" just because a bevy of young girls pointed their fingers and then then began writhing on the floor or making claims that the witch put spells on them. We know that even if we don't have the wherewithal (evidence) to prove that the girls are telling tall tales (which is exactly what we're hearing from Sessions, et. al.), that, likewise, we don't have the evidence to convict Moore, which mean -- because we have evolved -- we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

None of this, philosophically, enters the realm of family values or moral relativism. When voters understand that there is a "possibility" that an accusation might be true, but they also know that it might not be, the philosophically evolved position to take is the one of a presumption of innocence. In fact, that philosophy is so vital to our understanding of society today, that you can find it in Article 11 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's really that important.

Those who cannot come to a conclusion as to whether Moore is guilty or innocent of the charges, must, if they are to retains any sort of ethical high ground whatsoever, vote as they would have voted before hearing the stories. That's the only ethical choice.
 
And yet, we know kids and teens don't tell their parents everything, and that adults don't blurt out their accounts of sexual abuse at the earliest possible moment.

For example, hundreds of children and teens were abused by Catholic priests for years, and people said nothing. In the few instances where people did speak up, the priests were just packed off to another diocese.

Similarly, people waited years before discussing their problems with Weinstein, Spacey and Franken. Many of them are only discussing it now because they know it will have the maximum impact. Does that mean they are making it up?



No, actually, with Moore we're up to 9 women now, plus numerous other people talking about how Moore was booted from the Gadsen Mall for being a creep and hanging around teen girls too much. Most of the accusers, by the way, are Republicans.

Sorry dude, but an accusation is not proven false because the timing is bad for the accuser.

One of the problems with these accusations, has to do with the length of time between the alleged events, and when the accusers stepped forward. As time goes on, our perception of the past changes. For example, how many men, as teens, would take risks? When they look back to those risks, from the POV of being middle aged, they see risk, not fun. Driving the car 100mph is fun for a teen. But the older man would judge those same actions of his youth, differently. The same person can have two different attitudes for the same event all depending on how much time has passed.

A teen male might be part of a group of boys that jumps off the highest ledge in the quarry, into the lake below. This is exciting for a teen, even if very dangerous. Later in life, the idea of even looking over the edge, would be terrifying. This change of heart, that occurs with time, can make the older man remember his former friends, as not really being friends, since they put him into peril that could have killed him. With forty years of water under the bridge, perception of people also changes.

The closer the timing between the event and when one speaks up, the closer it will be to the real time feelings, in the context of the real time event. The longer the time lag, the more likely our mind can change and sees the same things, differently. As attitudes change, so does perception of the past. If a social taboo was to appear between then and now, we are socially forced to change our tune or be judged.

This is especially true, today, in light of the leftist game of judging the past, by contemporary standards, instead of judging the past by its own time; history versus revisionist history. This revisionist history tactic makes people remember the past differently, than what it was, due to the change in the social litmus test.

If you are old enough to recall 1970's, when Judge Moore was a Democrat, this was the time of free sex, swinging singles, and the jet set. Trump was part of that jet set, where all cool people went to the best parties; sex, drugs and rock and roll. It was also the time when the Democrats were pushing sex education in school, even to minors. Why teach little girls about sex other than priming the pump for the guys. Weren't they also pushing free birth control, condoms and abortion? If a 14 year old girl wanted birth control pills, modern hypocrisy did not apply back then. There was a legal way around parental authority. What about women's liberation and the burning of bra's? Wasn't the left trying to remove the stigmatism of having sex, by any which way, including homosexuality?

These limits tests of the times, gave cover to all the sexual escapades and perversions that was common in government in those days. The older timers, who played by the rules of the game in those days, are now being judged, by the standards of today, for things that was made stylish by the left, when they did it. Now the left acts like it is the moral authority, when it was the immoral authority of those times. How do you factor this out, to get to the truth?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom