Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
You might also check the facts while you're at it.
Mere accusations do not imply guilt. Much more is required. Until then a person is innocent. In other words, cut the crap. To say that Pete Rose was guilty of having sex with children is just plain wrong.
You're right. I am indeed astonished that there are people who cavalierly disregard the presumption of innocence which acts to protect us all from politically motivated prosecution by the State.
My take too on those who equate allegations with guilt.
But you seem to be all hot and bothered by my arm's length "Dunno, don't care, he's innocent until proven guilty and it's all beside the point anyway when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame" attitude when it comes to Pete Rose and these allegations. Why? Curious indeed if I do say so myself.
 |
This legal crap is 100% irrelevant and a distraction - your written stance was not that Rose was not convicted or not guilty and thus it should be dismissed, your written stance was that grown men raping children is okay as a general principle of your political views as long as the child somehow "consents".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.
|
We've had death wishes and/or threats and pedo crap posted this week already now, what's next to be endorsed? I know this stuff isn't as bad as something horrific like criticizing an auction house, but you'd think there'd be some moral line people could have the common sense to believe in and abide by. Can't wait to see the next hot take of depravity, it's only Wednesday.