I'm hell bent on making sure that people here, who project themselves to be wiser followers of the "GREAT AWAKENING", avoid acting like the irrational retards whom they call evil enemies. Most of the respondents on this thread have refused to present anything resembling logical thought. It's nothing but irrational, emotional unhinged personal perspectives eg "OMG ICKY."
My point is that the OP is clickbait. The headline is misleading. Don Jr. fell for the original clickbait and now people here have fallen for it, and instead of admitting that they didn't do their research, they are doubling down with absurd nonarguments. Contrary to the headline, the case in question wasn't definitively an issue of pedophilia. Regardless of the man's age, a 17 year old is not a child, let alone a prepubescent child. It doesn't meet the medical or legal definition of pedophilia. Does that mean that the man in question isn't a pedophile? Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn't. But based on the details of the circumstances of this case alone, no rational human being could arrive at such an objective conclusion. So unless there's more evidence of this man actually expressing pedophilic sentiments or engaging in pedophilic activities, you know, with CHILDREN, then it's just as wrong to call him a pedophile as it is for leftists to falsely label people as "racist" without evidence.
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking, a criminal, immoral act, regardless of the act of the victims. Granted, most states have more severe punishments for the younger the age of the victim due to measurably more harm done to more vulnerable people. What Epstein did wasn't just trafficking, but grooming, psychological and physical manipulation of girls and young women (perhaps boys and young men as well?). Were some of Epstein's clients pedophiles? Possibly, even highly likely. But again, this is all irrelevant to the case in the OP.
I'm not defending older men's desires and acting upon sexually exploiting children. That's pedophilia, which is illegal and immoral. But the case in question isn't definitively pedophilia. Why are people here so hell bent on purporting it to be? Because the clickbait is designed to make them say "AH! Sick Dem pardons Sick Dem, cause ThEy'rE aLL SiCk!" It's these kind of retarded, child-like statements that make normies write you off as being stupid "conspiracy theorists."
a man 40 years older than her that wants to be with her is predatory. He wants to use his age and experience to manipulate and control her
Unless you have the divine power to read hearts and minds, what you've stated is conjecture, speculation. You assume something to be the truth, that might not be. Perhaps a 40 year old was never able to find love and wants to have children and a family, so logically rules out women 30+ because of the increase in birth complications? Perhaps all the 20-29 year old women near him are so tied up in going to college, focusing on careers, their own self-centered STRONG WOMAN agenda pushed by the neo-feminist left? Along comes a non hag, younger woman who wants to have a family, wants children, wants to be a wife, accepts the age difference because the man is a loving, kind man. Are you to say that such a hypothetical situation never happened before and cannot happen? You're making an objective truth claim, without any substantial argumentative backing, while focusing only on arbitrary standards like age (again, if she was 18, there is no legal challenge, there is no story) and subjective perspectives of what you find to be "icky" and "disgusting." These are not legal standards. They aren't moral standards. They are your feelings.
Is this guy pedophile? Possibly. Do the circumstances of this case prove him to be? No. If you're so hell bent on believing him to be a pedophile, do some research and provide some definitive evidence to prove it.
Your reference to women over 30 being hags reflects your maturity level and also your need to justify your stance on 17 year olds being a-ok to bang if you’re an old man. You’re the one looking a fool here, dude. Sure, you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile but blowing up this thread with your arguments calling 17 a “non-hag” and arguing that it’s natural and been down for millennia is not a good look. Virginia Guiffre was 17. I’m sure her abusers were happy she wasn’t a hag, too.
It's actually a scientific fact that women over the age of 30 face higher risk of pregnancy complications. That was the point made, unlike your attempt to remove statements from context. After age 30, it's also true that many women do become haggy. That's just reality. You seem to be the one taking personal offense. Is that perhaps because you think of yourself as a hag? It'd seem that I unintentionally struck a nerve. I don't know you. You could be a dude. Could be an AI bot. Don't know. Don't really care. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile
Thank you. Glad you finally have come around to accepting reality. That was the entire point of this logical exercise. So if by definition, this case didn't definitively prove the man in question to be a pedophile, then why are allowing clickbait articles alleging as such to be prominently promoted on these boards without having been properly researched and vetted? That's no better than the left and the MSM propaganda machine.
It’s not the first time you called women hags. Seems you have female issues and this whole thread struck a nerve with you. You could be a lonely 46 year old, fat, sloven, bald, loser who never married and had been rejected so often your only comfort is that after your next retort to me, you can resume your Barely Legal porn collection. Don’t know. Don’t care.
Older men also by definition have lower quality sperm and are more apt to have genetic mutant offspring the older they have children. They can’t get or sustain erections, needing viagra or cialis to have sex. So another reason they shouldn’t be procreating at an older age, especially with younger women who could passing their genes on with someone who has better quality sperm and also matching libido.
When else did I call woman hags? I used the term one time on this board, which you then referenced out of context. Would you prefer I used Trump's preferred insult and call older ugly women pigs? Only "nerve" this thread struck is my lack of patience and toleration for low-intelligence, irrational people who are incapable of fairly simple concepts and refuse to admit when they've been duped by clickbait. If you're going to argue, then argue like a reasonable human being, not like some gender fluid crayon eating 3rd grader. If these are the kind of nothingburgers that are getting sticky'd on these boards, then what's the point? We can't stoop to using the same tactics they do. We have to be better. Vet better. Research better. Report better. Argue better.
Your perception of my life couldn't be further from the truth. But deep down you probably know that. Who knows, it might even be a projection of your own life struggles. Your problem is that you've slowly accepted that you lost this argument, and resorting to ad hominem is the only card left you can play. You say you don't care, but boy do you really seem to care. This of course all assumes that you're actually a person and not an ad...
Indeed, there are also potential pregnancy risks with men as they age, as you pointed out, lower sperm count, blood flow issues etc. And yet, the man in question ended up having 4 children with this woman, all seemingly in perfect health. So much for that arbitrary generalization's relevance to this case. Might explain why we don't have arbitrary age based laws making it a crime for a 60 year old to have sex with a 20 year old. If some 19 year old woman wants to bang loose skin old balls Sid, who the hell cares? It's not up to you to keep them from acting according to their own liberty, regardless of how icky or gross you and I might think it is.
The only thing that actually matters is the law and God's Law. From the facts of the case, it doesn't appear that this man violated either. Thus, calling him a "pedophile" is bearing false witness and sin. For somebody who goes around on these boards demanding that people repent, you should really consider your own advice fren.
I'm hell bent on making sure that people here, who project themselves to be wiser followers of the "GREAT AWAKENING", avoid acting like the irrational retards whom they call evil enemies. Most of the respondents on this thread have refused to present anything resembling logical thought. It's nothing but irrational, emotional unhinged personal perspectives eg "OMG ICKY."
My point is that the OP is clickbait. The headline is misleading. Don Jr. fell for the original clickbait and now people here have fallen for it, and instead of admitting that they didn't do their research, they are doubling down with absurd nonarguments. Contrary to the headline, the case in question wasn't definitively an issue of pedophilia. Regardless of the man's age, a 17 year old is not a child, let alone a prepubescent child. It doesn't meet the medical or legal definition of pedophilia. Does that mean that the man in question isn't a pedophile? Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn't. But based on the details of the circumstances of this case alone, no rational human being could arrive at such an objective conclusion. So unless there's more evidence of this man actually expressing pedophilic sentiments or engaging in pedophilic activities, you know, with CHILDREN, then it's just as wrong to call him a pedophile as it is for leftists to falsely label people as "racist" without evidence.
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking, a criminal, immoral act, regardless of the act of the victims. Granted, most states have more severe punishments for the younger the age of the victim due to measurably more harm done to more vulnerable people. What Epstein did wasn't just trafficking, but grooming, psychological and physical manipulation of girls and young women (perhaps boys and young men as well?). Were some of Epstein's clients pedophiles? Possibly, even highly likely. But again, this is all irrelevant to the case in the OP.
I'm not defending older men's desires and acting upon sexually exploiting children. That's pedophilia, which is illegal and immoral. But the case in question isn't definitively pedophilia. Why are people here so hell bent on purporting it to be? Because the clickbait is designed to make them say "AH! Sick Dem pardons Sick Dem, cause ThEy'rE aLL SiCk!" It's these kind of retarded, child-like statements that make normies write you off as being stupid "conspiracy theorists."
Unless you have the divine power to read hearts and minds, what you've stated is conjecture, speculation. You assume something to be the truth, that might not be. Perhaps a 40 year old was never able to find love and wants to have children and a family, so logically rules out women 30+ because of the increase in birth complications? Perhaps all the 20-29 year old women near him are so tied up in going to college, focusing on careers, their own self-centered STRONG WOMAN agenda pushed by the neo-feminist left? Along comes a non hag, younger woman who wants to have a family, wants children, wants to be a wife, accepts the age difference because the man is a loving, kind man. Are you to say that such a hypothetical situation never happened before and cannot happen? You're making an objective truth claim, without any substantial argumentative backing, while focusing only on arbitrary standards like age (again, if she was 18, there is no legal challenge, there is no story) and subjective perspectives of what you find to be "icky" and "disgusting." These are not legal standards. They aren't moral standards. They are your feelings.
Is this guy pedophile? Possibly. Do the circumstances of this case prove him to be? No. If you're so hell bent on believing him to be a pedophile, do some research and provide some definitive evidence to prove it.
Your reference to women over 30 being hags reflects your maturity level and also your need to justify your stance on 17 year olds being a-ok to bang if you’re an old man. You’re the one looking a fool here, dude. Sure, you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile but blowing up this thread with your arguments calling 17 a “non-hag” and arguing that it’s natural and been down for millennia is not a good look. Virginia Guiffre was 17. I’m sure her abusers were happy she wasn’t a hag, too.
It's actually a scientific fact that women over the age of 30 face higher risk of pregnancy complications. That was the point made, unlike your attempt to remove statements from context. After age 30, it's also true that many women do become haggy. That's just reality. You seem to be the one taking personal offense. Is that perhaps because you think of yourself as a hag? It'd seem that I unintentionally struck a nerve. I don't know you. You could be a dude. Could be an AI bot. Don't know. Don't really care. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Thank you. Glad you finally have come around to accepting reality. That was the entire point of this logical exercise. So if by definition, this case didn't definitively prove the man in question to be a pedophile, then why are allowing clickbait articles alleging as such to be prominently promoted on these boards without having been properly researched and vetted? That's no better than the left and the MSM propaganda machine.
It’s not the first time you called women hags. Seems you have female issues and this whole thread struck a nerve with you. You could be a lonely 46 year old, fat, sloven, bald, loser who never married and had been rejected so often your only comfort is that after your next retort to me, you can resume your Barely Legal porn collection. Don’t know. Don’t care.
Older men also by definition have lower quality sperm and are more apt to have genetic mutant offspring the older they have children. They can’t get or sustain erections, needing viagra or cialis to have sex. So another reason they shouldn’t be procreating at an older age, especially with younger women who could passing their genes on with someone who has better quality sperm and also matching libido.
When else did I call woman hags? I used the term one time on this board, which you then referenced out of context. Would you prefer I used Trump's preferred insult and call older ugly women pigs? Only "nerve" this thread struck is my lack of patience and toleration for low-intelligence, irrational people who are incapable of fairly simple concepts and refuse to admit when they've been duped by clickbait. If you're going to argue, then argue like a reasonable human being, not like some gender fluid crayon eating 3rd grader. If these are the kind of nothingburgers that are getting sticky'd on these boards, then what's the point? We can't stoop to using the same tactics they do. We have to be better. Vet better. Research better. Report better. Argue better.
Your perception of my life couldn't be further from the truth. But deep down you probably know that. Who knows, it might even be a projection of your own life struggles. Your problem is that you've slowly accepted that you lost this argument, and resorting to ad hominem is the only card left you can play. You say you don't care, but boy do you really seem to care. This of course all assumes that you're actually a person and not an ad...
Indeed, there are also potential pregnancy risks with men as they age, as you pointed out, lower sperm count, blood flow issues etc. And yet, the man in question ended up having 4 children with this woman, all seemingly in perfect health. So much for that arbitrary generalization's relevance to this case. Might explain why we don't have arbitrary age based laws making it a crime for a 60 year old to have sex with a 20 year old. If some 19 year old woman wants to bang loose skin old balls Sid, who the hell cares? It's not up to you to keep them from acting according to their own liberty, regardless of how icky or gross you and I might think it is.
The only thing that actually matters is the law and God's Law. From the facts of the case, it doesn't appear that this man violated either. Thus, calling him a "pedophile" is bearing false witness and sin. For somebody who goes around on these boards demanding that people repent, you should really consider your own advice fren.