17 is not a "child." 15 year olds were legally getting married for the entirety of human history up until the past 30 years. This isn't "pedophilia." The only way it was a crime is if it wasn't consensual.
Sorry frens, but Don Jr didn't look too hard into the facts of the case. Goes to show can't just accept every tweet or headline without doing your own research.
Apparently the guy was 56 when she was 17. Sure. Seems kind of gross... Is that the guy with the old balls? 👴🏻😳😂 But does that factor alone make it abuse, criminal, and/or immoral? If I were a 17 year old girl, unless the dude was rich and HOT, yeah, I probably wouldn't want any of that either... old balls... barf... but what if he was well off attractive, kind, caring, generous, loving? Do you see the point? We can't just go around calling things that SOME people might think "icky" to be pedophilia, a serious issue. Don't want to become like the left the way they resort to calling every racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic etc.
And in the past, if a teen got married, it was either to another teen, or perhaps someone in their low 20s, any older than low 20s, and it would be verging on pedophilia.
In response to your sarcasm, be careful to avoid the fallacy of generalization...
Something not being "the norm" doesn't make it criminal or immoral. If a 16 year old could get married in the 70s (yes, it happened, not always, not normally, but ot did happen and wasn't called pedophilia) and it was legal and not considered immoral, then why now should it be considered otherwise?
Oh they weren't? 16 year olds were never courting or marrying 56 year olds? Has all of your knowledge of history consisted only of stories since the year 2000?
"Normal" is a relative term. If a Christian lived amongst Muslims in 1740s Arabia, and did not have multiple wives (many of them quite younger than 18), that man would not be considered "normal" by that community's standards. In Portland, being "weird" is "normal" to people from Portland but they are weird to most of the rest of the USA who think they are weird.
For the sake of this discussion of serious matters, let's try to stick with using objective, absolute terms... for instance, like criminal, illegal, moral, immoral, sin etc. "Normal" just doesn't quite cut it.
Are you really this naive? By your logic, everything going on in this country about jabs and masks are consensual because nobody has been physically forced to take a jab, and nobody has physically forced a mask on someones face. Sheesh.
Just so you know, No normal 17 year old want to have sex with some old grandpa, grandpa. It appears that someone is trying to abuse the system that was put in place to protect this young girl. Oh, and what a surprise, its a dem politician.
Your comparison to masks and jabs presents a false equivalence.
"Normal"... what is "normal" to you might not be normal to others. So every 17 year old girl over the course of human history that slept with and/or married an older man was "abnormal"? According to what set of standards, aside from you subjective perspective?
If lawmakers and society is to assert that no 17 year should ever be considered an adult, then that standard should be held to consistently. In which case, then why would they have been permitted to give her a job in his office if she was not an adult? Yes, the system would have failed. And yet, she was given a job because the law permitted it on the basis that a 17 year old was enough of an adult to have a job.
I'd bet you there are likely as many actual Republican pedophiles as Democrat pedophiles. Sexual mental illnesses are rampant. But in this case, immediately jumping to the conclusion that this was a purely political move, regardless of the evidence of the case indicating a much more complex situation, would be quite unwise and even hypocritical. We can never stood to the same tactics used often by leftists.
You are an enabler. And you are dead wrong. Arbitrary laws of adulthood don't make it right.
My grandma was 14, there was a depression MD she married a 35 yo. I still think my grandfather was fucked up for doing that. And a 55 yo has to groom a 17 yo period. It's predatory period Nd you normalizing it doesn't change that.
Arbitrary laws of adulthood also don't make it wrong. Age is indeed arbitrary. Thank you for agreeing to one of my main points. If she was 18, would you be so emotionally invested? Would this be news? Nope. Why? Because under the law, it's not a crime. In many states, age of consent is 16 and 17. So crime in some places but not others? Why the different standards? Crime in some centuries but not others? Why the different standards? What are they based on? Put forth an actual argument. Turn your brain on.
Please spare me the "omg patriarchal abusers" leftist talk. Not every "old man" is a manipulative predator. If you want to think your grandpa was fucked up, that's your prerogative. I dare you to say the same about Mary and Jospeh... you know, the earthly parents of God Himself. Silly teenager and old dude cause they did something that doesn't jive with our MoDerN PrOgreSSiVe sTanDarDs!
Can't tell if these kinds of posters are bots, shills, or really just that incapable of complex thought...
See, now this is an example of how humans can and should be capable of engaging in civil, thought provoking, intellectual, purposeful discussion. Good frens make good frens, fren 😁
And yes, could just be falling for clickbait and unwilling to admit it. I will admit that I immediately updooted the OP before reading into the facts of the case and situation, which is quite significantly more complex than "dem gov bails out evil dem pedo man"
Thinking that you are capacity for complex thought is your defining character is how you allow leftists to gaslight you. I have seen this again and again. Maybe once we cleanup the world of evil and then everyone participates in society in good faith, these kind of debates have a place. Right now, all I see is a convicted pedophile being pardoned. If you cannot capitalise on that to help our fight then you are on the wrong side.
Except that by definition, he didn't engage in pedophilic acts. A 17 year old, is not a child. Have not people you side with, been wrongfully convicted? Or are the opinions of juries and judges supreme over truth?
17 is not a "child." 15 year olds were legally getting married for the entirety of human history up until the past 30 years. This isn't "pedophilia." The only way it was a crime is if it wasn't consensual.
Sorry frens, but Don Jr didn't look too hard into the facts of the case. Goes to show can't just accept every tweet or headline without doing your own research.
If I'm not mistaken there was a +-40 yr age gap ...
Apparently the guy was 56 when she was 17. Sure. Seems kind of gross... Is that the guy with the old balls? 👴🏻😳😂 But does that factor alone make it abuse, criminal, and/or immoral? If I were a 17 year old girl, unless the dude was rich and HOT, yeah, I probably wouldn't want any of that either... old balls... barf... but what if he was well off attractive, kind, caring, generous, loving? Do you see the point? We can't just go around calling things that SOME people might think "icky" to be pedophilia, a serious issue. Don't want to become like the left the way they resort to calling every racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic etc.
Yeah I know when I was sixteen I was looking to date someone old enough to be my grandpa, that's on every teenage girls to do list.
Fyi in the 70s and 80s getting married at fifteen and sixteen wasn't the norm.
And in the past, if a teen got married, it was either to another teen, or perhaps someone in their low 20s, any older than low 20s, and it would be verging on pedophilia.
In response to your sarcasm, be careful to avoid the fallacy of generalization...
Something not being "the norm" doesn't make it criminal or immoral. If a 16 year old could get married in the 70s (yes, it happened, not always, not normally, but ot did happen and wasn't called pedophilia) and it was legal and not considered immoral, then why now should it be considered otherwise?
You're correct but those sixteen year olds weren't dating or marrying men 40 years older than them either.
Even you have to admit that's not normal, but keep defending the creepo if you want.
Oh they weren't? 16 year olds were never courting or marrying 56 year olds? Has all of your knowledge of history consisted only of stories since the year 2000?
"Normal" is a relative term. If a Christian lived amongst Muslims in 1740s Arabia, and did not have multiple wives (many of them quite younger than 18), that man would not be considered "normal" by that community's standards. In Portland, being "weird" is "normal" to people from Portland but they are weird to most of the rest of the USA who think they are weird.
For the sake of this discussion of serious matters, let's try to stick with using objective, absolute terms... for instance, like criminal, illegal, moral, immoral, sin etc. "Normal" just doesn't quite cut it.
Are you really this naive? By your logic, everything going on in this country about jabs and masks are consensual because nobody has been physically forced to take a jab, and nobody has physically forced a mask on someones face. Sheesh.
Just so you know, No normal 17 year old want to have sex with some old grandpa, grandpa. It appears that someone is trying to abuse the system that was put in place to protect this young girl. Oh, and what a surprise, its a dem politician.
Your comparison to masks and jabs presents a false equivalence.
"Normal"... what is "normal" to you might not be normal to others. So every 17 year old girl over the course of human history that slept with and/or married an older man was "abnormal"? According to what set of standards, aside from you subjective perspective?
If lawmakers and society is to assert that no 17 year should ever be considered an adult, then that standard should be held to consistently. In which case, then why would they have been permitted to give her a job in his office if she was not an adult? Yes, the system would have failed. And yet, she was given a job because the law permitted it on the basis that a 17 year old was enough of an adult to have a job.
I'd bet you there are likely as many actual Republican pedophiles as Democrat pedophiles. Sexual mental illnesses are rampant. But in this case, immediately jumping to the conclusion that this was a purely political move, regardless of the evidence of the case indicating a much more complex situation, would be quite unwise and even hypocritical. We can never stood to the same tactics used often by leftists.
You are an enabler. And you are dead wrong. Arbitrary laws of adulthood don't make it right.
My grandma was 14, there was a depression MD she married a 35 yo. I still think my grandfather was fucked up for doing that. And a 55 yo has to groom a 17 yo period. It's predatory period Nd you normalizing it doesn't change that.
Arbitrary laws of adulthood also don't make it wrong. Age is indeed arbitrary. Thank you for agreeing to one of my main points. If she was 18, would you be so emotionally invested? Would this be news? Nope. Why? Because under the law, it's not a crime. In many states, age of consent is 16 and 17. So crime in some places but not others? Why the different standards? Crime in some centuries but not others? Why the different standards? What are they based on? Put forth an actual argument. Turn your brain on.
Please spare me the "omg patriarchal abusers" leftist talk. Not every "old man" is a manipulative predator. If you want to think your grandpa was fucked up, that's your prerogative. I dare you to say the same about Mary and Jospeh... you know, the earthly parents of God Himself. Silly teenager and old dude cause they did something that doesn't jive with our MoDerN PrOgreSSiVe sTanDarDs!
Can't tell if these kinds of posters are bots, shills, or really just that incapable of complex thought...
See, now this is an example of how humans can and should be capable of engaging in civil, thought provoking, intellectual, purposeful discussion. Good frens make good frens, fren 😁
And yes, could just be falling for clickbait and unwilling to admit it. I will admit that I immediately updooted the OP before reading into the facts of the case and situation, which is quite significantly more complex than "dem gov bails out evil dem pedo man"
Thinking that you are capacity for complex thought is your defining character is how you allow leftists to gaslight you. I have seen this again and again. Maybe once we cleanup the world of evil and then everyone participates in society in good faith, these kind of debates have a place. Right now, all I see is a convicted pedophile being pardoned. If you cannot capitalise on that to help our fight then you are on the wrong side.
Except that by definition, he didn't engage in pedophilic acts. A 17 year old, is not a child. Have not people you side with, been wrongfully convicted? Or are the opinions of juries and judges supreme over truth?