Roy Moore accuser's Gadsden home burns; arson investigation underway

[SilverWolf26]

Matress girls victim was kicked out of his college courses and banned from college campus. Clearly he's wrong too, right?

Again, all it takes is enough people to accuse someone for you to believe it without a trial, so why the hell are you fighting me on lynch mobs when you're literally defending their form of justice.

Whataboutism isn't a defense. Crying "lynch mob!" isn't a defense, either. It's an empty attempt to detract from the real subject at hand without addressing any of the real issues in any form. You keep using the same vapid argument but haven't acknowledged in any capacity that there is plenty of evidence. It's just another case of "Look, the fire is over here, not over there!"

[KayRule]

I never realized there were this many alt-right retards who unironically wanted a pedophile in office.

[xuros]

Nothing quite like baselessly slandering an arson victim, because you want to defend a pedophile.

Isnt there an investigation underway? So he would be a potential arson victim. Just like the other is a potential pedo. Potential and all since there is no proof of anything. Thought you lbgdfjhvrfeiphgrthig guys supported pedos these days as one of those crazy fucking initials.

[Endus]

Isnt that the exact thing you said in your first post ?
That other dude said that she committed forgery before and expressed the opinion that she might have lied about the fire.
You flipped your shit and said it was slander, but then you switch gear and have no problem calling Moore a pedophile.

I mean, rocks, glass house, etc.

Difference being that there's plenty of evidence of Moore's peccadilios.

And there's zero evidence that this woman falsified a damned thing. It's a malicious lie drummed up by Moore supporters in a failed attempt to discredit her, because her testimony is fairly damning.

So no, it isn't remotely the "same thing". The difference is the facts available. You know, facts? Those things that are real and true, and not made up bullshit?

[Calfredd]

Fine prove you didn't touch a child.

You can't prove a negative so you already lost the argument.

[cparle87]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that only matters if you're pursuing a conviction for a criminal infringement, in a court of law.

It doesn't even apply to civil infringement cases, let alone public opinion.

Personally I think it should. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the burden of evidence isn't enough to convict someone of a criminal charge it shouldn't be enough to sue them into the poorhouse in a civil suit. Same thing happened with someone I knew. He was accused of a felony, was acquitted, but was still sued for all he was worth. His own father was afraid to put him in his will out of fear the family trust could be taken.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you see an issue with that though? Don't you think that if you're in a spot where you can't defend yourself against an accuser that something has gone horribly wrong?

Of course they don't. They WANT to become a lynch mob, and they don't care who they hang. Innocent before proven guilty doesn't exist in our age of media saturation. You know on all the live cop shows they say 'the names involved have been hidden to protect the innocent?' Well, if they haven't been convicted of a crime yet then the suspect is also an innocent and the press shouldn't be allowed to release their name. This is especially egregious in rape crimes. Even if he's tried and acquitted in the minds of many he's just one who got away with it.

[Gangresnake]

Difference being that there's plenty of evidence of Moore's peccadilios.

And there's zero evidence that this woman falsified a damned thing. It's a malicious lie drummed up by Moore supporters in a failed attempt to discredit her, because her testimony is fairly damning.

So no, it isn't remotely the "same thing". The difference is the facts available. You know, facts? Those things that are real and true, and not made up bullshit?

Can you post these "facts" ? All I get is accusation, aka "he said/she said". Where's the fucking proof.
The girl atleast admitted that she added the fake date and place that supported the pedophilia accusation. Not sure if that count as forgery in the US, but that's something, I dont think Moore admitted to anything.

So no, I'm sorry but from the look of it there's not a goddamn thing that make it okay to call him a pedophile. You're just another guy swimming in fake bullshit that convinced himself he's bathing in facts for the sake of winning internet points.

[Torto]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that only matters if you're pursuing a conviction for a criminal infringement, in a court of law.

It doesn't even apply to civil infringement cases, let alone public opinion.

A sickening example of progressive justice right here. If we can't convict him in court we will crucify him in the court of public opinion. Who cares if he might be innocent, he's just another red neck conservative.

[sarahtasher]

It's really odd that everyone keep forgetting who got into the sex crimes hysterics and launched a wave of dubious accusations

(Hint : if you try really hard, you will notice that the cases that are always brought up for ''fake rape'' are the crosse players from Duke and the much murkier ''mattress girl''. Both are jokes compared to the hysterical litteral witch hunts launched in the eighties)

[Kaleredar]

Wonder what the insurance check will look like? She has a history of getting paid for dirty work, but this is rare. Usually the accusers disappear into a fog of nonexistence after the election is over and the checks are cashed.

You do know that if they don't bring legal charges against the person (and would then have to win the case) they don't make any money, right?


Do you think there's some "you claim to have been sexually harassed by a famous person, here's a pile of money" fund just sitting around?

[sarahtasher]

A sickening example of progressive justice right here. If we can't convict him in court we will crucify him in the court of public opinion. Who cares if he might be innocent, he's just another red neck conservative.

When Alex-the-Rat-Jones invented Pizzagate, did MAGAboys hesistated for a split second before believing it ?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you post these "facts" ? All I get is accusation, aka "he said/she said". Where's the fucking proof.
The girl atleast admitted that she added the fake date and place that supported the pedophilia accusation. Not sure if that count as forgery in the US, but that's something, I dont think Moore admitted to anything.

So no, I'm sorry but from the look of it there's not a goddamn thing that make it okay to call him a pedophile. You're just another guy swimming in fake bullshit that convinced himself he's bathing in facts for the sake of winning internet points.

Are the usual suspects asking for proof when one of their site says that there are ten billion rapes by Muslim in Sweden this year ?

[Notshauna]

Fine prove you didn't touch a child. Go on, I accused you. In the court of social justice you're already guilty until proven innocent, so fine we'll go by your rules.

Peoples careers and lives have been ruined by false accusations alone, and to think "naw, it's okay they're probably right" is incredibly stupid and awful. So go ahead, prove you're not a pedophile.

You can't prove a negative. You can come up with a literally endless stream of reasons why his defenses are lies, because your argument isn't bound by rules. If he has an alibi for one day you can just move it to another, if he points to the complete lack of evidence supporting your claims you can just say maybe it hasn't been discovered, etc. It's why society attempts to prove guilt, not innocence. People aren't assumed innocent until proven guilty because of some high minded ideal that it should take an absurd amount of evidence to come to a conclusion, instead it's so individuals can actually defend themselves.

[cparle87]

Whataboutism isn't a defense. Crying "lynch mob!" isn't a defense, either. It's an empty attempt to detract from the real subject at hand without addressing any of the real issues in any form. You keep using the same vapid argument but haven't acknowledged in any capacity that there is plenty of evidence. It's just another case of "Look, the fire is over here, not over there!"

But what if there IS a fire over there. Should it be excluded entire to focus on this fire right here? This argument gets used a lot. Something is bad, something is a problem. Person A says it should be fixed. Person B goes 'ok, can we fix this thing too while we're at it, or next?' And Person A screams whataboutism.

[SilverWolf26]

And why do you think people don't like him? Might it be a possible false accusation? That is insanity.

Yeah, not historic revisioning. Repubs stayed the greedy monsters they were before and after just look at what Lincon actually thought of blacks, he was a shit lord too. The difference is Democrates changed their positioning on things.

Is there a reason you're dodging the issue of proving you're not a pedophile?



And saying someone is a pedophile without evidence is wrong. enough people banned him because they also heard pedophile, and without evidence mind you, got him banned. Can you show me the plenty of evidence that isn't hersay?

How about the man's own words then? Is that enough for you?

"Senate candidate Roy Moore was interested in underage girls because he was looking for the “purity of a young woman,” according to a pastor.

The Alabama judge also had a hard time finding women his age after returning from the Vietnam War, leaving him no choice but to pursue young girls, added pastor Flip Benham of the group Operation Save America said on the talk radio show “Matt & Aunie.”

You see, people aren't just jumping the "hang Roy Moore" bandwagon, which is your claim.

These comments were in his defense.

People have repeatedly said that there was plenty of evidence, but it's been blatantly ignored in your crusade to defend a man who is known far and wide as being interested in young girls. It's sick, it's sad, and there is no "court of public opinion" here. I said it before and I will say it again, it's amazing how many hoops people are willing to jump through to justify this. Fact is fact. The man was harassing young girls in an Alabama mall and got thrown out; 9+ girls have come forward accusing him of inappropriate behavior, he was first attracted to his wife when she was 14, and his own statements attempt to justify it.

You can yell "Lynch mob!" until you're blue in the face, it still won't change any of that.

- - - Updated - - -

But what if there IS a fire over there. Should it be excluded entire to focus on this fire right here? This argument gets used a lot. Something is bad, something is a problem. Person A says it should be fixed. Person B goes 'ok, can we fix this thing too while we're at it, or next?' And Person A screams whataboutism.

It IS whataboutism when you approach it as you have and ignore the evidence of the original argument. If you bluster hard enough and long enough, people will argue with you about that topic instead of the original one and you've accomplished what you set out to do.

[sarahtasher]

FFS, Roy Moore was repugnant enough to be non electable as a republican in Alabama.

[SilverWolf26]

*hand wave* hersay.

Try again though please.

Sure, ok.


People have repeatedly said that there was plenty of evidence, but it's been blatantly ignored in your crusade to defend a man who is known far and wide as being interested in young girls. It's sick, it's sad, and there is no "court of public opinion" here. I said it before and I will say it again, it's amazing how many hoops people are willing to jump through to justify this. Fact is fact. The man was harassing young girls in an Alabama mall and got thrown out; 9+ girls have come forward accusing him of inappropriate behavior, he was first attracted to his wife when she was 14, and his own statements attempt to justify it.

[Endus]

Is there a reason you're dodging the issue of proving you're not a pedophile?

I've given you more leash than you deserved. At this point, all you deserve for this kind of malicious bullshit is a hearty "fuck off".

Can you post these "facts" ? All I get is accusation, aka "he said/she said". Where's the fucking proof.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...roy_moore.html

And that's not even up to date. That was posted November 14th. Ignoring facts don't make them go away.

[The Penguin]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that only matters if you're pursuing a conviction for a criminal infringement, in a court of law.

It doesn't even apply to civil infringement cases, let alone public opinion.

Except when it's your party on the receiving end. Then it's racism, insanity, sexist and very much infractable "because muh conspiracy theory".

[Endus]

Except when it's your party on the receiving end. Then it's racism, insanity, sexist and very much infractable "because muh conspiracy theory".

I'm curious what you think "my party" is.

[The Penguin]

I've given you more leash than you deserved. At this point, all you deserve for this kind of malicious bullshit is a hearty "fuck off".



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...roy_moore.html

And that's not even up to date. That was posted November 14th. Ignoring facts don't make them go away.

Oh so it's alright to say fuck off to posters?

Awesome. Great example as always.