Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[BioCRN]

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.



Like I say, I'm not among those silly enough to care.



Why not? It's not the Baseball Hall of Honor; it's the Baseball Hall of Fame and these fellows are famous primarily for their exploits on the field. Other considerations just aren't relevant.

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? What in the actual hell?

I've seen threads go off the rails here regularly, but wow...I don't even know where to start here.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? What in the actual hell?

Nice try, but I saw you palm that card. You know full well that the crux of this question is where does childhood end when it comes to sexual maturity and therefore where/how should the age of consent be defined? And that's a question that involves both culture and jurisdiction.

The age of consent right here in Canada was twelve until 1890 when it was raised to fourteen and then sixteen in 2008. Like I say, the question is cultural. A universal moral law it's not.

Originally Posted by BioCRN

My dude, are you choosing to die on the "okay to have sex with children" hill? ... I don't even know where to start here.

I'd suggest you not start with me at all. You'll lose any debate.

And if you think I'm going to be immediately cowed by "sensitive" topics such as this one (or race), you're wrong, very wrong. I'm too tough minded. I won't immediately fold my hand when these subjects are raised. I'll apply the same logical compass I use for any other question.

Like I say, I really don't give a damn about Pete Rose's sexual foibles. Any jurisdictional problems he may have as a result don't concern me.

Nor do I actually care whether he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame or not. It's no big deal. (As an aside Johnny Rotten referred to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a "piss stain" when he passed on attending his induction ceremony.) Hypocrisy though I'll condemn every time. It's called freedom of speech.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12. Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I’m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I’m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent. And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims. Laissez faire, bro!! I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac -- if Rose preferred 12 and 13 year old girls, he had a right to self-fulfillment.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent. And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims. Laissez faire, bro!! I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac -- if Rose preferred 12 and 13 year old girls, he had a right to self-fulfillment.

Several of the Black Sox, notably Cicotte, admitted to throwing games in the 1919 World Series, and went into great detail about how it was done. However, they were obviously lying when they confessed, because a court of law found them Not Guilty.

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

What! Are you being serious? Or did this go over my head?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I was providing the Baltic Fox take.

No you weren't. I said a man is innocent until convicted. I said nothing about anyone found guilty. It's a logical error to leap from my statement to the assumption that any and all those convicted are actually guilty.

Originally Posted by Mark17

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

Originally Posted by Mark17

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

Yes, those words of yours do indeed sound ridiculous.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent.

Yes, that tautology is indeed the cornerstone of our legal system. It's also a key bulwark in any free society against malicious prosecution by the State. But this you already know (I hope).

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims.

Epstein was convicted. Rose? No. That's a very real difference. Or are you now willing to pronounce a man guilty on the basis of innuendo alone?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac....

Even a quick look at your interactions and exchanges with other members of this board reveals that you've held that title since 2009.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children*....

You might also check the facts while you're at it. That's your phrase.

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12.

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.

Originally Posted by G1911

Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.

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.

Originally Posted by G1911

Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

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.

[G1911]

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".

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

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".

Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child. And yes, I am willing to accept the local jurisdiction's definition of age of consent.

Originally Posted by G1911

We've had death wishes and/or threats and pedo crap posted this week already now....

And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.

Originally Posted by G1911

...but you'd think there'd be some moral line people could have the common sense to believe in and abide by.

Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.

Originally Posted by G1911

Can't wait to see the next hot take of depravity, it's only Wednesday.

Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.

[Snowman]

Jesus Christ. What a disaster of a thread. You guys are hopeless.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by snowman

jesus christ. What a disaster of a thread. You guys are hopeless.

+1000000

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are.

Tough minded enough not to shrink from a "sensitive" topic.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

I'd guess you mask your insecurities....

Uggghhh. Take your psycho babble elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

...behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary....

"Bloviation"? And you accuse me of overcomplicated vocabulary. I'll just say that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard.

Hey, I post a lot of pictures of cards too! You might try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

"You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

It's getting late. Mind if I continue tomorrow? I promise to use shorter words you might understand.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

Well since I advocated no such thing, I'll put you down as an asshole but I'll reserve the right to give you an occasional reminder. Deal?

[babraham]

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

+1

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by babraham

+1

+1000

Leon, clean-up on aisle 2 needed.

[GrayGhost]

I feel Rose was egregious in his behavior by betting while he was managing.

Joe played hard and really wasn't, apparently, totally aware of what he was doing.

Id put Joe in, and Pete no. But, again, its all about perception. if its only based on field performance, of course Pete is a lock

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Nice try, but I saw you palm that card. You know full well that the crux of this question is where does childhood end when it comes to sexual maturity and therefore where/how should the age of consent be defined? And that's a question that involves both culture and jurisdiction.

The age of consent right here in Canada was twelve until 1890 when it was raised to fourteen and then sixteen in 2008. Like I say, the question is cultural. A universal moral law it's not.



I'd suggest you not start with me at all. You'll lose any debate.

And if you think I'm going to be immediately cowed by "sensitive" topics such as this one (or race), you're wrong, very wrong. I'm too tough minded. I won't immediately fold my hand when these subjects are raised. I'll apply the same logical compass I use for any other question.

Like I say, I really don't give a damn about Pete Rose's sexual foibles. Any jurisdictional problems he may have as a result don't concern me.

Nor do I actually care whether he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame or not. It's no big deal. (As an aside Johnny Rotten referred to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a "piss stain" when he passed on attending his induction ceremony.) Hypocrisy though I'll condemn every time. It's called freedom of speech.

You may not be done with this. I am. This is a matter that shouldn't have to be explained to a grown, mature adult.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

This is a matter that shouldn't have to be explained to a grown, mature adult.

I take it your "grown, mature" is the same as "supercilious, starchy". Me I take pride in being the proverbial prudent man.