Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 146: Judge Roy Moore

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

You just outright said you are okay with means being used whether right or wrong, as long as the outcome is one that you find suitable.

There is no right or wrong here though. They interpret the song differently than I do. Thats not a crime.

Still sidestepping.
---

Corrik posted...

Crisis? What? Lol

You come across like this is a huge deal that we all need to make a statement about.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

You just outright said you are okay with means being used whether right or wrong, as long as the outcome is one that you find suitable.

There is no right or wrong here though. They interpret the song differently than I do. Thats not a crime.

Still sidestepping.

Sidestepping what? I dont think its wrong if they get the song labeled as racist or whatever
---

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

So I will extrapolate off of what you said. If you delete a song you should be charged with murder.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Yeah, he's a pretty fucked up guy.

Can we not do that thing

I absolutely hate the "You can't make that comparison!!" thing. Crux of the point stands
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Crisis? What? Lol

You come across like this is a huge deal that we all need to make a statement about.

I asked your opinion on a political issue in a politics topic.

I personally find it extremely outrageous. I can't even see justification that could be used regarding it, and I was curious if you all would even go so far as to refuse to denounce a pretty crazy act such as that.

Surprise...
---

Samurai7 posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

So I will extrapolate off of what you said. If you delete a song you should be charged with murder.

That's not how principles work. Furthermore, it doesn't even apply. The extrapolation is based on the caring of said person in the outcome and ignoring the means of how it got there.
---

Corrik posted...

I personally find it extremely outrageous. I can't even see justification that could be used regarding it,

You literally just said that theres a 5% chance its racist
---

I recall reading an argument that the Star-Spangled Banner was racist, based primarily on a line in the third verse ("no refuge could save the hireling and slave, from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave", meaning "the slaves who defected to the British for freedom are gonna get their asses kicked, aw yiss".) I do not consider this to be an issue, because who the hell knows anything past the first verse anyhow, let alone sings it?

So while I understand how the descendants of slaves could view the song negatively, I think attacking it is a waste of time, and even gives ammunition to the people who would rather conclude "clearly, our political opponents are un-American commie mutant traitors" than try to understand the issue.
---

Corrik posted...

Samurai7 posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

So I will extrapolate off of what you said. If you delete a song you should be charged with murder.

That's not how principles work. Furthermore, it doesn't even apply. The extrapolation is based on the caring of said person in the outcome and ignoring the means of how it got there.

The difference is, even if you hate Hillary, you DO care about her right to live, because shes a human being.

No one should care about a songs right to exist.
---

Corrik posted...

Samurai7 posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

So I will extrapolate off of what you said. If you delete a song you should be charged with murder.

That's not how principles work. Furthermore, it doesn't even apply. The extrapolation is based on the caring of said person in the outcome and ignoring the means of how it got there.

https://www.google.com/search?q=extrapolate&oq=extrapolate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2047j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

as google shows, what I did is extrapolation by definition
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I personally find it extremely outrageous. I can't even see justification that could be used regarding it,

You literally just said that theres a 5% chance its racist

I will go outright and say that if the author literally rises from the grave and says that yes when I talked about hireling and slave running in fear from the United States or going to the grave after going into combat against us in battle I was absolutely being racist. I will say I am wrong.

I will also allow said possibility if the secret diary turns up stating this outright, his first draft covered in racial slurs and clear intention of racist meaning in that phrase is procured, or even if the Lord and Savior comes down and decrees it in God's name.

Maybe I should have went with 99.7% darn me and my use of %'s.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Samurai7 posted...

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

So I will extrapolate off of what you said. If you delete a song you should be charged with murder.

That's not how principles work. Furthermore, it doesn't even apply. The extrapolation is based on the caring of said person in the outcome and ignoring the means of how it got there.

The difference is, even if you hate Hillary, you DO care about her right to live, because shes a human being.

No one should care about a songs right to exist.

... I think you are digging an even bigger hole. I don't feel like dealing with hostile left garbage trying to defend it to point it out. Let's just say, I disagree. And, it is important to care how things come about whether you like the outcome or not. There is many times in history people have gone along with something because they wanted the outcome to come about. Then those means were applied elsewhere which caused a lot of outcomes they were not satisfied with.

You have to be very careful with what you condone as far as means because those means do not always go towards the outcomes you prefer.
---

Its kind of appropriate that we only sing the first verse and call it the whole song.

A perfect encapsulation of American laziness!
---

Corrik posted...

You have to be very careful with what you condone as far as means because those means do not always go towards the outcomes you prefer.

As long as the outcomes dont infringe on human rights Im fundamentally okay if outcomes I dont prefer happen.

Also, people having a different interpretation of a song than I do is something I proactively condone.
---

I will go outright and say that if the author literally rises from the grave and says that yes when I talked about hireling and slave running in fear from the United States or going to the grave after going into combat against us in battle I was absolutely being racist.

Corrik, what is your non-racist interpretation of the line?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

You have to be very careful with what you condone as far as means because those means do not always go towards the outcomes you prefer.

As long as the outcomes dont infringe on human rights Im fundamentally okay if outcomes I dont prefer happen.

Also, people having a different interpretation of a song than I do is something I proactively condone.

What's your favorite video game, Jakyl?
---

Final Fantasy VI
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

I will go outright and say that if the author literally rises from the grave and says that yes when I talked about hireling and slave running in fear from the United States or going to the grave after going into combat against us in battle I was absolutely being racist.

Corrik, what is your non-racist interpretation of the line?

There is literally not a single ounce of racism in the entire quote. He speaks about the pollution of the British steps, and he refers to the traitors (hirelings and slaves) who fought for the British and that they flee in terror against the United States in combat or that they meet the grave (aka are killed in battle).

He is talking about the opponents in the battle. The British and the traitors who joined them in battle.

There is not a single racist point in the entire verse. Saying the word "slave" does not mean racist.
---

FWIW I 100% agree with Corriks reading of the verse.
---

OK. Do you believe that is the only possible interpretation? How about the only coherent interpretation?
---

Corrik posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

That's such a low key non-issue, does't seem worth getting into.

Sounds to me like 2 of you are low-key supporting it and 1 of you is low-key dodging it.

Like, that is out of control crazy to me.

Lol. The party who is about to elect a pedophile to the Senate thinks that not giving a damn about a dumb song is out of control crazy. Your priorities sure are interesting.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Final Fantasy VI

The California NAACP wants to ban and remove FFVI because it is racist and anti-black.

Personally (not really) I do not like FFVI so I am cool if they do that. Fuck that game. It sucks.

^ Stupid viewpoint which is rife with childish minded hyperbole in all actuality from the start.

However, sure whatever, they get their way and somehow the United States says the video game FFVI is now banned in the United States.

But, would it even end there? Now what if they declare whatever else is anti-black and so on?

If you didn't actually have merit in the initial means, then the need to have them doesn't exist further. (Cultural Revolution was a huge extreme of how it can be carried away drastically)

You are also talking about the National Anthem for the entire damn nation which has been here for generations and symbolizes your nation.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

OK. Do you believe that is the only possible interpretation? How about the only coherent interpretation?

I personally dont see another coherent interpretation, but I am not so bold as to say there isnt one.

There are other possible interpretations, as we see with this whole debate. Its not very well written.
---

The California NAACP wants to ban and remove FFVI because it is racist and anti-black.

The debates about whether General Leo is black like his character art can be seen to imply or white like his sprite have finally gone TOO FAR!
---

Perhaps actually valuing what we say our national values are is a more meaningful symbolism.
---

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Did Corrik really just compare a human being murdered to... doing away with the current national anthem?

Simple extrapolation.

You've definitely taken far simpler extrapolations super literally before. You should probably just stay away from this area in general.
---

Corrik posted...

You are also talking about the National Anthem for the entire damn nation which has been here for generations and symbolizes your nation.

Presumably another song would take its place
---

Corrik posted...

However, sure whatever, they get their way and somehow the United States says the video game FFVI is now banned in the United States.

Are they trying to get the Star-Spangled Banner banned in the United States? This seems to be where the analogy falls apart.
---

People are gonna be so mad when the FFVII remake comes out and Barrett doesnt speak like a 70s blaxploitation lead anymore

THEY CENSORED MY CHILDHOOD
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

That's such a low key non-issue, does't seem worth getting into.

Sounds to me like 2 of you are low-key supporting it and 1 of you is low-key dodging it.

Like, that is out of control crazy to me.

Lol. The party who is about to elect a pedophile to the Senate thinks that not giving a damn about a dumb song is out of control crazy. Your priorities sure are interesting.

I am
1. Not an Alabama voter.

2. I am not voting for said person.

3. Democrats have elected plenty of people unfit for office. I believe Roberts Byrd was an outright KKK member that Democrats elected to the Senate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

4. You are mislabeling someone as a pedophile.

5. He allegedly had relations with 1 girl under the proper age of consent in that state. Not a case of pedophilia, as of now.

6. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and people are allowed to discuss things other than what you wish to in addition to things you want to.

7. Are you sure he is about to be elected?

8. Song is the national anthem. Most people in most countries do not like to see their national anthem disgraced, same as their flag.

9. I understand trying to change the subject, handwave, and other such tactics when you cannot properly defend your position.
10. I personally have no opinion of Moore. Nor did I have one of Strange or the Democratic nominee. Moore in my limited knowledge seems too extreme to me, but I cannot even accurately make that opinion as I do not know enough about him. If the allegations about his inappropriate relationship are true, I would hope he would step down. If he denies them and they are proven true, I would hope he would step down or be removed from office, and prosecuted in any way the law would allow (dunno statutes on that).
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

OK. Do you believe that is the only possible interpretation? How about the only coherent interpretation?

You can interpret anything in literally any way. However, you need actual supportive reasoning for said interpretation to have any considerable merit.
---

Corrik posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

OK. Do you believe that is the only possible interpretation? How about the only coherent interpretation?

You can interpret anything in literally any way. However, you need actual supportive reasoning for said interpretation to have any considerable merit.

So if their campaign has no merit, whats the issue? Are you concerned it might get results anyway?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

You are also talking about the National Anthem for the entire damn nation which has been here for generations and symbolizes your nation.

Presumably another song would take its place

I wonder which song would be the best replacement.

Stars and Stripes Forever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5bcpjUjLpU

Lyrics Version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hu6hrjCQpI
---

She was 14, he was like 32. Splitting hairs on the legal definition of what he did is skeevy as all hell and gross
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

OK. Do you believe that is the only possible interpretation? How about the only coherent interpretation?

You can interpret anything in literally any way. However, you need actual supportive reasoning for said interpretation to have any considerable merit.

So if their campaign has no merit, whats the issue? Are you concerned it might get results anyway?

I think I touched upon this already. I wanted to see if you all would simply denounce a comical thing that originated from the Left or if you were going to handwave it and try to support it because it originated from your own political spectrum.

The entire notion is pretty much a laughing stock from what I have seen.

Filed this under the "even Board 8 isn't this truly polarized to even defend that". Then I was going to try and lead to a discussion of whether you felt people are trying to overuse their identifiers to get what they want in situations.

However, we never even got that far.
---

DeathChicken posted...

She was 14, he was like 32. Splitting hairs on the legal definition of what he did is skeevy as all hell and gross

The law is the law. If the age of consent is 16 and he dated 400 16 year olds, then he did nothing illegal. Maybe you question it morally and that is your right. It doesn't make it illegal though. My grandfather is 16 years older than my grandmother. My father is... 18 years older than my stepmother. Hell, the first time I met her I was hitting on her at a party and then I went home later that night, and she was sleeping with my father. Awkward to say the least.

Granted she was 23 then when they got together and I dunno my grandmother's age when she met my grandfather. But, the point is relationships with a 16 year old is not illegal there.

The 14 year old relationship one is the one that is in question here. Because that IS illegal there. If true, he should be prosecuted by the law accordingly.

I am not going to sit here and brand someone a pedophile who allegedly had an illicit consensual non-sexual relationship with a girl past sexual maturity.

If it is true, I will brand him as a sick man who knew better and illegally was trying to key in on underaged teens who probably lacked self-confidence and emotional stability.
---

Describing a relationship in which the girl was told to strip and give the guy a handjob as non-sexual is skeevy as all hell and gross. I'm noticing a pattern
---

Corrik let me stop you back at sentence 2 here - its long enough later that actual criminal liability is truly second here

The man being a huge skeezeball is a big deal because hes up to be a US Senator which we should have higher standards for than "technically skirted the letter of the law, most of the time". If he was willing to do it in his love life hes going to be willing to do it elsewhere too.

Think about the kind of adult who specifically targets teenagers as sexual partners and ask if thats the standard we want for our Senate.
---

DeathChicken posted...

Describing a relationship in which the girl was told to strip and give the guy a handjob as non-sexual is skeevy as all hell and gross. I'm noticing a pattern

Are you describing the actual situation? If so, give me a source and educate me. The only thing I have seen is that clothes were taken off. Some touching on a bra happened. Some guiding of the hand to the genitalia happened. She asked to go home and was taken home as requested.

I did not see any demanding or telling of a girl to strip and give him a handjob. If you have a source that does say that, I would honestly like to see it.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik let me stop you back at sentence 2 here - its long enough later that actual criminal liability is truly second here

The man being a huge skeezeball is a big deal because hes up to be a US Senator which we should have higher standards for than "technically skirted the letter of the law, most of the time". If he was willing to do it in his love life hes going to be willing to do it elsewhere too.

Think about the kind of adult who specifically targets teenagers as sexual partners and ask if thats the standard we want for our Senate.

I stated outright that if true I would hope he would step down. I cannot speak definitively to what happened in his love life would completely boil over to his professional life. Nor can I either not state that maybe in 30 or 40 years maybe he is reformed or not.

What I can say is, that if true he should step down because that is not behavior we should have represented in our Senate, especially if having lied about it.
---

Man, how many of these people making excuses would want a 30+ year old macking on their teenage daughters?

Fucking hell, if 30 is ok then when is the cutoff? "Dad, this is my new boyfriend. He collects social security and is a member of AARP."
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Man, how many of these people making excuses would want a 30+ year old macking on their teenage daughters?

Fucking hell, if 30 is ok then when is the cutoff? "Dad, this is my new boyfriend. He collects social security and is a member of AARP."

I wouldn't at all. I would be highly against it. Then again, I would probably be against any one taking my girl out. The difference is, I can't sit there and say it is illegal if it isn't. I also cannot say much if she is past the age of consent besides lodge my own complaint.

In PA our laws are different. Age of consent is less than 4 years difference or age 18 if above that difference.

If my 18 year old daughter brings home a 70 year old man, what can I really do besides vehemently complain about it?
---

You can interpret anything in literally any way. However, you need actual supportive reasoning for said interpretation to have any considerable merit.

OK.

Your own interpretation of the poem referred to the "hirelings and slaves" as traitors - but if they're not really Americans, they can't be traitors. Surely we wouldn't call British POWs "traitors" if they managed to escaping and return to the British forces, just because they had been previously incarcerated within America. But it's fair to use the term to describe escaped slaves? Just because our forefathers robbed them of their own homelands does not compel them to offer loyalty to ours.

If the Star Spangled Banner does, as your interpretation suggests, proceed under the assumption that slaves have an obligation to be loyal to the country that enslaved them... that's pro-slavery. Given the history of slavery in the United States, I do not mind linking "pro-slavery" with "racist", although I recognize that these terms would not necessarily equate within, say, Ancient Rome.

Discuss.
---

http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Alabama-Senate-Executive-Summary-General-Election-Poll-2.pdf

First poll to have Doug Jones in the lead
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

You can interpret anything in literally any way. However, you need actual supportive reasoning for said interpretation to have any considerable merit.

OK.

Your own interpretation of the poem referred to the "hirelings and slaves" as traitors - but if they're not really Americans, they can't be traitors. Surely we wouldn't call British POWs "traitors" if they managed to escaping and return to the British forces, just because they had been previously incarcerated within America. But it's fair to use the term to describe escaped slaves? Just because our forefathers robbed them of their own homelands does not compel them to offer loyalty to ours.

If the Star Spangled Banner does, as your interpretation suggests, proceed under the assumption that slaves have an obligation to be loyal to the country that enslaved them... that's pro-slavery. Given the history of slavery in the United States, I do not mind linking "pro-slavery" with "racist", although I recognize that these terms would not necessarily equate within, say, Ancient Rome.

Discuss.

It is a good attempt at a backdoor technicality argument. I admire that. However, traitor is a word I added and wasn't present in the song verse. Thus, your argument is more directed at me than the song itself.

To you personally though, do you consider Abraham Lincoln racist?
---

Are you guys even remotely surprised Corrik is only defending Moore because he's a Republican, and then will turn around and accuse people of only defending someone becaise they're a democrat (I recall him doing this with some of Obama's actions before, but I'd have to go archive digging for examples)?
---

Uhh yes, of course Abe was racist
---

I am not surprised at that, but I am kind of surprised a guy with a daughter would try to condone pedophilia through weasel words. That's a special kind of weird, and I feel bad thinking about it and the implications for his family
---

A fun graph

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOXTEaCVoAAv-GM?format=jpg&name=small
---