"Locker Room Talk"?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It appears as if, in the eyes of the "Far-left zealot" 'some' people get a PASS for their indiscretions?

In the universe which 'Far-left zealots' exist;


TRUMP: Throw the book at him!
Bill Clinton: Give him a pass!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I just noticed this thread was started by AB, therefore, I'll abstain from posting here in the future. I don't want him on my thread and therefore, I'll not Post here again. As they say, What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[The Barbarian]

None of those men seemed to be offended by what was being said.
In fact, they seemed to encourage it.

People like that seek out others like them. Do you think it's a coincidence that Trump was best buddy to a convicted pedophile? Or that he joked about Epstein liking "them on the younger side?"

And it is certainly no secret that some women do LET men do that to them.

Which is fine, if they want to sin, that's between them and God. Problem is, guys like Trump and Weinberg weren't looking for those kind of women. They like it when the woman is reluctant, and can be intimidated into giving in.

 

[Arthur Brain]

From a moral perspective they are sluts and whores.

From a zealous, judgemental perspective they may be considered to be but that's not an arbiter of morality.

All that participate in sexual misconduct are human beings.

True enough, although your parameters of 'sexual misconduct' are painted with a somewhat broad brush.

No more of a double standard than anyone that voted for any Presidential candidate that participated in sexual misconduct.
And that's just all the ones we publicly heard about.

So stop cherry picking on Trump and lets get them ALL by criminalizing ALL of them.
Anyone that has ever participated in sexual misconduct - criminal.
Get them ALL away from society so we have good sexually moral communities.

For all those who have committed crimes, like assault of any kind, rape, harassment etc, sure. Your zealous nonsense of making any sex outside of marriage a criminal act - no. It isn't, nor should it be. Society shouldn't have to live according to laws that you might personally want to see established.

If you think my little list of sexual misconduct is strict and a zealous, judgmental, perspective, you should check out what the ME TOO movement is claiming should be considered sexual misconduct.

I 'think' it because it is. I don't see anything so zealous from the Me Too Movement that promotes locking people up for having relations outside of marriage, do you? In principle I'm not even sure what point you're making by mentioning them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sexual misconduct is not limited to adultery.

Either you are against sexual misconduct or you or not.
No sexual misconduct should be excluded in lieu of cherry picking.

Um, well you don't get to set those parameters. I don't and the law doesn't consider sex outside of marriage to be sexual misconduct or a crime. You may but that's your own personal beliefs on the matter that don't apply to everyone else. Therefore, there's no cherry picking or double standard in condemning instances of sexual assault, rape, harassment, abuse etc that are lawfully considered sexual crimes.

 

[Tambora]

You excuse Trump because it doesn't matter to you.

You guys are morons.
I say to lock up ALL that have committed sexual misconduct, and somehow you turn that into excusing Trump?
It is ME that wants them ALL locked up, and YOU that wants to excuse most of them.

 

[Tambora]

True enough, although your parameters of 'sexual misconduct' are painted with a somewhat broad brush.

Having sex with anyone other than whom you are married to is sexual immorality.
If your parents raised you to believe that having sex with women when you are not married to them is OK, then they raised you poorly.

Society shouldn't have to live according to laws that you might personally want to see established.

The things I have mentioned are all sexual misconduct.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Having sex with anyone other than whom you are married to is sexual immorality.
If your parents raised you to believe that having sex with women when you are not married to them is OK, then they raised you poorly.

My parents weren't religious zealots, nor did they in any way encourage 'sleeping around' either, so kindly leave them out of this. If I was in a monogamous, unmarried relationship I wouldn't have been condemned for it.

The things I have mentioned are all sexual misconduct.

No, they aren't. Nobody should be regarded as a criminal for having a relationship that doesn't happen to involve a marriage certificate.

 

[Tambora]

Um, well you don't get to set those parameters.

You are trying to. Why can't I also?

I don't and the law doesn't consider sex outside of marriage to be sexual misconduct or a crime.

You may but that's your own personal beliefs on the matter that don't apply to everyone else. Therefore, there's no cherry picking or double standard in condemning instances of sexual assault, rape, harassment, abuse etc that are lawfully considered sexual crimes.

Wow.
Some morons just let whatever the current law is be your moral compass.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You guys are morons.
I say to lock up ALL that have committed sexual misconduct, and somehow you turn that into excusing Trump?
It is ME that wants them ALL locked up, and YOU that wants to excuse most of them.

You want to lock up people simply for having an unmarried relationship. That's you projecting your own religious fervor and zealous 'morality' onto people at large and it doesn't fly. This sidebar of yours is just deflection.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are trying to. Why can't I also?

Because your opinions about what 'sexual misconduct' comprises of are just your transparent attempt to shift the goalposts from what are rightfully and lawfully considered crimes.

Wow.
Some morons just let whatever the current law is be your moral compass.

The law reflects common sense, your judgmental brand of religious zealotry doesn't. Only the far right would promote locking people up for having relationships out of wedlock.

 

[Tambora]

Nobody should be regarded as a criminal for having a relationship that doesn't happen to involve a marriage certificate.

It is sexual misconduct.
Just because you failed at it doesn't mean you should be excused.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is sexual misconduct.
Just because you failed at it doesn't mean you should be excused.

No, it isn't and if this is all you have then it's no wonder you're reduced to pathetically attempting to bunch anything outside of marriage as criminal. It makes it a lot easier to deflect from actual criminal acts such as sexual assault.

 

[Tambora]

No, it isn't

Yes, it is, AB.
Having sex with women you are not married to is sexual misconduct.
You are making a fool of yourself by claiming it is not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, it is, AB.
Having sex with women you are not married to is sexual misconduct.
You are making a fool of yourself by claiming it is not.

No, it isn't, and it certainly isn't criminal and nor should it be. Couples are not obliged to get married by way of. You're essentially trying to accuse people of double standards if they don't conform to your 'religious' idea of what should be criminal and that's not the yardstick.

 

[Tambora]

No, it isn't

Yes it is.
Having sex with a woman you are not married to is indeed sexual misconduct.
And you claiming that it is A-OK just shows your bias and lack or morality.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes it is.
Having sex with a woman you are not married to is indeed sexual misconduct.
And you claiming that it is A-OK just shows your bias and lack or morality.

No, in itself it isn't, outside of your 'religious' sense of morality. A monogamous couple who are committed to each other don't need a church ceremony or a piece of paper to reflect that by way of. They don't need your approval one way or the other and they certainly don't need to be regarded as criminals because they aren't. You may believe they're being immoral but that matters squat in regards to the law that isn't based on your particular brand of dogma. If you can't separate the two then it's no wonder you're feebly trying to equate 'morality' with actual crime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Does sexual misconduct have a place in a free society or not?
Make yup your mind before you want to have folks punished for it.

Missed this. From a criminal perspective, absolutely not as described in law. Outside of sexual crimes then personal interpretations of sexual morality based on religion etc have no place in that. You're free to believe that cohabiting is immoral of course along with homosexuality or whatever but neither are crimes and in a free society they shouldn't be, for fairly obvious reasons.

You assume wrongly, again.
You should try addressing what I say instead of what I don't say.

Okay, do you think masturbation isn't a form of sexual misconduct?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I just noticed this thread was started by AB, therefore, I'll abstain from posting here in the future. I don't want him on my thread and therefore, I'll not Post here again. As they say, What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You're not barred from this thread as I am in yours GM and you're free to contribute in it. What I would ask out of common courtesy is that you don't refer back to me in yours where I don't have the opportunity to respond to this kind of crap:

"Earlier this week 'Arthur Brain', one of the renowned 'Leftists' (who happens to live in the U.K.) on TOL, had some kind of "problem" and I had to ask that he be removed from this thread before things, further escalated. The problem was, he was beginning to show signs of losing his rational perspective.'"

When I'm logged out I can still see what's going on in that thread and if you can't respond to me directly then just be adult enough not to refer to me at all. Not too much to ask is it?

 

[musterion]

I like the part where the atheist gets all preachy and moralistic for purely political reasons, not moral ones, and even cites a standard he doesn't believe in to do it.