Elections Alabama Special Senate Election Live Results Thread

Last edited:
Thumiliated-660x330.jpg

I have the best picks, amazing picks, believe me, that i can tell you.
 
Only if they're a Republican.
I wonder where ole Mo would have plotted on the political persuasion chart?

Btw, fuck em both, but how about a bit of consistency?
 
Has anyone pointed out that Alabama really puts the special in special senate election yet?
 
Rip got banned? I was wondering where he'd been....
He was kidnapped by Nephilims.
He was exposing their nefarious plans, i.e Obama's 3rd term. I warned him.

I have said too much.
 
I wonder where ole Mo would have plotted on the political persuasion chart?

Btw, fuck em both, but how about a bit of consistency?

Can't let consistency get in the way of a good story.

Humorously, I actually borrowed some of the "arguments" that I used on this thread, from @Rational Poster 's defense of Muhammed. I would feel like a thief if I didn't credit him for the origin material.
 
Can't let consistency get in the way of a good story.

Humorously, I actually borrowed some of the "arguments" that I used on this thread, from @Rational Poster 's defense of Muhammed. I would feel like a thief if I didn't credit him for the origin material.
Lol. Now that's rich.
 
Lol. Now that's rich.

I thought this post in particular would've echoed a little bit:

It might be questionable to have relations with 16-year olds by modern standards, but it is not an act of pedophilia. Pedophiles prey on sexually immature children.

In Roy Moore's time, while seeking relationships with 16-year olds may or may not have been the norm, we did not yet possess the sort of knowledge that we now do about the possible negative impact on emotional and cognitive growth, caused by relationships at an immature (mental) age. The common understanding appears to be that a person ought to be emotionally mature once they are 17 years old. Sexual maturity is no longer the determining factor, as it once was.

The reality is that most 20 to 30 year old males sought after younger company, and may have even been socially pressured to do so, especially in Christian circles. It's hard to determine whether Moore was truly predator-like, or whether he was simply acting as was expected of a Christian man at the time. Grooming a young wife, in order to have as many healthy children as possible, is a fundamentally Christian practise.

Hell, we are bringing in men from foreign countries who have married their wives a lot younger than 16. It's going to be a real shit-show once we start sorting that out.
 
I thought this post in particular would've echoed a little bit:
Yeah. The "that was then and this is now" relativsm bs reeks of Mo defense. Especially in light of the fact that nobody has ever claimed that Moore is the most perfect man to ever live, compounded with the fact that the age difference in the newer case is drastically less, while the maturity level of the recent "victim" is significantly higher. Consistency - what is it, and how does it work?
 
Oh, my apologies. I legitimately did not mean to mock you. I just meant to disagree with you.

My bad if i took it more seriously than it was.

It sounds like society has decided what should be illegal and what should not. I think you can advocate for change to the laws, but you should not then appoint society to be a morality police for the things that are not legal. I have never seen that do more good than harm.

Nobody is appointing society to be a morality police, society does that itself pretty well.

Men and women who committ adultery get properly ostracized by the immediate members of his community who disagree with their actions.

An alcoholic for example will have issues holding a job if he is constantly impaired.

It took society 2000 Christian years to get to get to this point. And the reason the law failed in these cases is because society didn't think it was sufficiently an issue to uphold the law. It's only now that women are able to speak out against powerful abusers and see results.

Society tends to shit the bed where morals are concerned.

We had far more morality laws back then than today.

Well, some people disagree with you. Some people look back at our thousands of years of morality policing and see all the damage that has been done. Some of us say we should make secular, health-based laws, using modern studies for guidance when applicable, then let the police do their job while we all shut the fuck up and worry about our own lives instead of punishing people for adultery. Adultery can have legal consequences anyways, so there is no need to get involved.

We actually dont, we have thousands of years of morality being legally enforced, not the opposite.

The only exception to that is drugs which werent illegal but for the most part when it comes to morality the laws have become more lax and morality is enforced by society at large, not the government.
 
Can't let consistency get in the way of a good story.

Humorously, I actually borrowed some of the "arguments" that I used on this thread, from @Rational Poster 's defense of Muhammed. I would feel like a thief if I didn't credit him for the origin material.

1970 vs 600
 
Weren't you involved in an argument about "this semantic bullshit" where as a result you got labeled a pedo apologist due to the distinction between pre and post pubescent sex?

Nope, that was about something different, it involved the use of presentism in context to ancient history.

Not you know, events that happened in modern times during some of our lives.
 
You were claiming that @oleDirtyBast4rd was wrong about the age of consent laws in Alabama. From what I could gather, he wasn't. He said, correctly, that it was 16 in Alabama.

I felt prompted to step up in his defense considering that he was being relentlessly shamed and shut down by the usual leftist crew (along with moderator assistance).

Yeah, but his position makes no sense to begin with since its in defense of a man who dated high school girls who were as young as 14 years old.
 
My bad if i took it more seriously than it was.

Nobody is appointing society to be a morality police, society does that itself pretty well.

Men and women who committ adultery get properly ostracized by the immediate members of his community who disagree with their actions.

More than likely, they get spurned or verbally abused by friends and family members. As recently as 50 years ago they might have been assaulted or killed, with no legal consequences, and that still happens in many parts of the world.

Society has never handled that properly and it's only through the involvement of modern laws that its punishment is kept in proportion to the "crime".

An alcoholic for example will have issues holding a job if he is constantly impaired.

Alcoholism was perfectly societally acceptable for all of human history. Most societies relied on alcoholism because alcohol was safe to drink, whereas there water sources probably weren't. As recently as fifty years ago it was fine to drink and drive with your kids in the car. We still live in a society where there is a concerted effort by the law to discourage drinking and driving because, left to its own devices, moral society is pretty shitty at this stuff.

The only reason an alcoholic would have trouble holding a job before the law was involved was because he couldn't physically do his job. Now if you get a couple of impairment charges it could affect your employment. Nothing to do with society upholding morals.

We had far more morality laws back then than today.



We actually dont, we have thousands of years of morality being legally enforced, not the opposite.

This is wrong. For the last 2000 years of western society, what they did was not a crime. They only became crimes in the last half-century or so and society is still so accepting of these old, repulsive beliefs that they argued Moore did nothing wrong. Plenty of people came forward and talked about how Moore's actions were seen as perfectly fine back then and even flattering. If people had never gotten the law changed, we would never be having this conversation.

And as for Weinstein and the fallout from the #metoo campaign... we've had laws against sexual assault for years, but it's only now that women are able to speak out against their abusers and authorities feel pressure to take action. It is literally only now that society is using its weight to enforce any sort of morality on the subject. And there's still a huge part of society, with their old ideas of morality, pushing back against them.

The only exception to that is drugs which werent illegal but for the most part when it comes to morality the laws have become more lax and morality is enforced by society at large, not the government.
[/quote][/quote]
 
Back
Top