Asia Agento apparently had been sexually grooming the child she statutorily raped since he was 12

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Lil devils x:

Davroth:

Worgen:
The creator of Rurouni Kenshin a popular manga/anime was found to be in possession of child pornography. There you go, smoking gun, people who like anime are pedophiles.

Except, you know how stupid that line of thinking is, its obvious. The problem is you make the same mistake in your post. Sure there are instances of the anti-gay politician or priest caught with the rent-boy, or the feminist supporter using his position to try and score sex. But these are outliers, the reason they stick with us is because these people are acting in a hypocritical way. We don't remember the majority of people aren't being hypocrites, we just remember the exceptions.

There are tons of instances, and tons of instances we will likely never hear about. You also completely missed the most important part. I was talking about people who are EXTREMELY vocal about their proported believes. I never said that the majority of people are hypocrits. Chase those windmills elsewhere, please.

Examples of bad people doing bad things =\= people who are vocal about things they feel strongly about really do those things themselves. No, that is not a logical conclusion to draw and is terribly false.

Reality is people get mad about things and they speak up, that does not mean in any way they do those things themselves. Then you have what are called " con artists" who do many bad things and misrepresent themselves, this is just ONE of those things. Con artists have no impact on those who genuinely feel strongly about things they are trying to change and are not representative of them. No, they are simply con artists who do bad things.

What do you mean 'logical'? It's an observable phenomenon. This is not some isolated incident. There's tons of studies, too, specifically about homophobes being homosexual themselves. You can easily look that up on your own. It's no stretch the same applies to this stuff as well. It's a guilt reaction.

It's baffling to me that you'd want to deny actual tangible science. What do you have backing your hypothesis up?

I'm not sure what to say about Argento at this point, because the details of what happened aren't totally clear. She seems to have had sex with a minor - which is problematic on its own - but currently, both of them are accusing the other of committing sexual assault.

I will say that it wouldn't at all surprise me if Argento had in fact forced herself on a 17-year-old; firstly because it's tragically common for the victims of abuse to begin abusing others themselves, and secondly because the social norms surrounding male victims of sexual assault are very heavily warped. There's still a large segment of people who think it's impossible for a woman to rape a heterosexual man because men are all sex fiends who will never turn down a romp in the sack. Basically, it's entirely possible Argento tried to cope with the experience of her own prior abuse by pressuring a teenager into sex. It re-asserts the sense of power and control that she would have lost when she was assaulted, and she could very well have rationalised it by convincing herself that Bennett would enjoy it because he was a young guy and guys never turn down sex with a pretty woman.

But, like I said, the details still aren't totally clear. We know that Argento was paying hush money to the guy, which is certainly hypocritical on her part even if the sex was consensual. We also know that Bennett's previously-lucrative career effectively stalled after 2013, which is when the events are said to have taken place; that indicates that it had some impact on his ability to work, which further supports his account of events.

It's pointless, however, to point to Argento's case as an example of an active double standard in the #MeToo movement or the justice system, as some people have. Legally speaking, the actions that can be taken are limited; Argento is currently living in Germany, if I remember correctly, and the events occurred in California. While she may well be sued, for her to be actually charged with sexual harassment - or a more likely charge of statutory rape - she would need to be extradited.

The media's response has, in my reading, been universally critical of Argento. The oft-cited examples of celebrities defending Argento all actually predate the NYT report that revealed the settlement details. The voices willing to support Argento after the report's publication are much, much fewer. Argento's situation is just difficult to accept because she was a victim herself; the story is more complicated than usual, and a little harder for friends of Argento to swallow.

Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

Davroth:

Lil devils x:

Davroth:

There are tons of instances, and tons of instances we will likely never hear about. You also completely missed the most important part. I was talking about people who are EXTREMELY vocal about their proported believes. I never said that the majority of people are hypocrits. Chase those windmills elsewhere, please.

Examples of bad people doing bad things =\= people who are vocal about things they feel strongly about really do those things themselves. No, that is not a logical conclusion to draw and is terribly false.

Reality is people get mad about things and they speak up, that does not mean in any way they do those things themselves. Then you have what are called " con artists" who do many bad things and misrepresent themselves, this is just ONE of those things. Con artists have no impact on those who genuinely feel strongly about things they are trying to change and are not representative of them. No, they are simply con artists who do bad things.

What do you mean ?logical?? It?s an observable phenomenon. This is not some isolated incident. There?s tons of studies, too, specifically about homophobes being homosexual themselves. You can easily look that up on your own. It?s no stretch the same applies to this stuff as well. It?s a guilt reaction.

It?s baffling to me that you?d want to deny actual tangible science. What do you have backing your hypothesis up?

What you are describing are what are called " coincidence" not that the two are in any way related. A con artist is a " pretender" they " pretend" to be like those who genuinely care and are trying to make a difference, they pretend to be a home owner, they pretend to be a car salesman, they pretend to be a Nigerian Prince who needs your bank account. That is all they are. That does not mean that because they pretended to be like those who who ARE genuinely sincere that some how means the people who are sincere are somehow con artists for being vocal and passionate about their causes or objectives. You see the con artists is pretending to be like they are, that is why they are able to con people in the first place.

Them being a con artist has nothing to do with how vocal others may be about their own causes/ passions. Do you think Bernie Sanders is a con because he is extremely vocal? Do you think that what Trump says/does has any impact on who Bernie Sanders is or what he does? The fact that someone is "riled up" and vocal about something has nothing to do with whether or not they are honest. Their actions both past and present, character witnesses, and evidence are what determines that. It just boils down to some people being cons and others not.

No, the vast majority of homophobes are not gay, there is a minority of them who are. There is a larger percentage of homophobes that are gay than thepercentages found in the general population, however, that still does not make them the majority of homophobes. There is a difference.

I disagree that it is a guilt reaction for the most part, it is just a scam. When you look at the sheer number of politicians who do this, it is a scam for wealth and power, or they are being paid to carry out an agenda, many of those doing this actually have a history of scamming people with different scams, and this is not their first attempt. People fall for it because they do not bother to do their research and listen to what people who know them or have dealt with them actually have to say. People are still electing these cons when they have a long history of scamming people prior with different things. Reminds me of that family who were all con artists that scammed millions in real estate fraud and then tried to run for office in another town. That is not out of guilt, it is because that is who they are/ what they do. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

the December King:
Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

Unless he speaks up or a family member does, we will never know. That is why it is so important to be able to talk about these things. I honestly, from everything I have read on this, think he has some sort of sexual/compulsive disorder and should be properly examined and diagnosed. He seems to lack self control in several areas as well though, not just sexually but is also prone to violent outbursts and behavior. I am sure more on that will likely come out in time as I have read he is seeking treatment.

I think there is more to this than him just being a privileged asshole who thinks he can do whatever he wants to women, but rather he lacks control in his judgement centers of his brain. He needs a proper examination though to determine exactly what the problem is. That in no way though makes what he did okay.

Lil devils x:

the December King:
Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

Unless he speaks up or a family member does, we will never know. That is why it is so important to be able to talk about these things. I honestly, from everything I have read on this, think he has some sort of sexual/compulsive disorder and should be properly examined and diagnosed. He seems to lack self control in several areas as well though, not just sexually but is also prone to violent outbursts and behavior. I am sure more on that will likely come out in time as I have read he is seeking treatment.

I see. I was just curious- thanks for the response.

the December King:
Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

No. Nor would it offer sufficient mitigation to salvage him.

We can accept the evidence showing that being abused, particularly in youth, appears to increase the likelihood of becoming an abuser oneself, and we can therefore accept extend some sympathy or understanding, and perhaps view it in many cases as reason to give such victim-perpetrators help to improve. But it just doesn't excuse or erase the magnitude of a serious crime.

bastardofmelbourne:
I'm not sure what to say about Argento at this point, because the details of what happened aren't totally clear. She seems to have had sex with a minor - which is problematic on its own - but currently, both of them are accusing the other of committing sexual assault.

It looks extremely bad for her one way or another.

If he was sending her pornographic material from an early age, arguably it strengthens her case that he jumped her. Although as you say, having sex with a minor is problematic any which way. Anything short of being the victim of him assaulting her means she's failed due diligence to check the age of someone she had good reason to suspect may have been too young. And that's guilty. The payout looks awfully incriminating.

Agema:

the December King:
Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

No. Nor would it offer sufficient mitigation to salvage him.

We can accept the evidence showing that being abused, particularly in youth, appears to increase the likelihood of becoming an abuser oneself, and we can therefore accept extend some sympathy or understanding, and perhaps view it in many cases as reason to give such victim-perpetrators help to improve. But it just doesn't excuse or erase the magnitude of a serious crime.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that other harassers like Weinstein should be absolved of their crimes. I was just interested in seeing if we are to look at Argento's (admittedly supposed) crime, that she gets some degree of absolution and sympathy because she was a victim, and how that might apply to someone like Weinstein, were he found to be a victim.

So, if Argento did indeed commit a crime here, does her case warrant salvage in your eyes, as it's not as serious a series of offenses as Weinstein's (or rather as numerous)?

Lil devils x:

What you are describing are what are called " coincidence" not that the two are in any way related. A con artist is a " pretender" they " pretend" to be like those who genuinely care and are trying to make a difference, they pretend to be a home owner, they pretend to be a car salesman, they pretend to be a Nigerian Prince who needs your bank account. That is all they are. That does not mean that because they pretended to be like those who who ARE genuinely sincere that some how means the people who are sincere are somehow con artists for being vocal and passionate about their causes or objectives. You see the con artists is pretending to be like they are, that is why they are able to con people in the first place.

Them being a con artist has nothing to do with how vocal others may be about their own causes/ passions. Do you think Bernie Sanders is a con because he is extremely vocal? Do you think that what Trump says/does has any impact on who Bernie Sanders is or what he does? The fact that someone is "riled up" and vocal about something has nothing to do with whether or not they are honest. Their actions both past and present, character witnesses, and evidence are what determines that. It just boils down to some people being cons and others not.

No, the vast majority of homophobes are not gay, there is a minority of them who are. There is a larger percentage of homophobes that are gay than thepercentages found in the general population, however, that still does not make them the majority of homophobes. There is a difference.

I disagree that it is a guilt reaction for the most part, it is just a scam. When you look at the sheer number of politicians who do this, it is a scam for wealth and power, or they are being paid to carry out an agenda, many of those doing this actually have a history of scamming people with different scams, and this is not their first attempt. People fall for it because they do not bother to do their research and listen to what people who know them or have dealt with them actually have to say. People are still electing these cons when they have a long history of scamming people prior with different things. Reminds me of that family who were all con artists that scammed millions in real estate fraud and then tried to run for office in another town. That is not out of guilt, it is because that is who they are/ what they do. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

I know what a con artist is. And it doesn't apply to this situation. How is Agento a scam artist? Who is she scamming? You are arguing against a construct of your own design that has nothing to do with what I said, and don't even back it up with anything but conjecture.

Nowhere did I say that everyone who, say, spoke out about the #metoo thing in a hypocrite, as you seem to imply I'm saying.

You just selectively decide those studies and statistics don't apply, completely arbitrarily I might add.

Oh, so you think that if you grow up in the Bible Belt as a gay youth surrounded by the most staunch of Christian fundamentalists, you wouldn't suppress your gay urges and possibly overcompensate by vocally opposing the gays? Yeah, geez, what am I thinking? What a stretch. Obviously the only possible explaination is that gay politicians bash other gays for wealth and power. That makes sense, they incite hatred against their own lifestyle out of greed.

the December King:
So, if Argento did indeed commit a crime here, does her case warrant salvage in your eyes, as it's not as serious a series of offenses as Weinstein's (or rather as numerous)?

Putting aside criminal convictions, I was previously going to say yes to this, but then realised you can't end someone's career more than once.

Agema:
Okay, we get the message: you don't like feminists. Next time, just say so and don't bother dressing it up as anything else.

Ah, but based on the logic in this thread, the more he rages against feminists the more likely it is he is secretly a feminist.

Davroth:

Lil devils x:

What you are describing are what are called " coincidence" not that the two are in any way related. A con artist is a " pretender" they " pretend" to be like those who genuinely care and are trying to make a difference, they pretend to be a home owner, they pretend to be a car salesman, they pretend to be a Nigerian Prince who needs your bank account. That is all they are. That does not mean that because they pretended to be like those who who ARE genuinely sincere that some how means the people who are sincere are somehow con artists for being vocal and passionate about their causes or objectives. You see the con artists is pretending to be like they are, that is why they are able to con people in the first place.

Them being a con artist has nothing to do with how vocal others may be about their own causes/ passions. Do you think Bernie Sanders is a con because he is extremely vocal? Do you think that what Trump says/does has any impact on who Bernie Sanders is or what he does? The fact that someone is "riled up" and vocal about something has nothing to do with whether or not they are honest. Their actions both past and present, character witnesses, and evidence are what determines that. It just boils down to some people being cons and others not.

No, the vast majority of homophobes are not gay, there is a minority of them who are. There is a larger percentage of homophobes that are gay than thepercentages found in the general population, however, that still does not make them the majority of homophobes. There is a difference.

I disagree that it is a guilt reaction for the most part, it is just a scam. When you look at the sheer number of politicians who do this, it is a scam for wealth and power, or they are being paid to carry out an agenda, many of those doing this actually have a history of scamming people with different scams, and this is not their first attempt. People fall for it because they do not bother to do their research and listen to what people who know them or have dealt with them actually have to say. People are still electing these cons when they have a long history of scamming people prior with different things. Reminds me of that family who were all con artists that scammed millions in real estate fraud and then tried to run for office in another town. That is not out of guilt, it is because that is who they are/ what they do. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

I know what a con artist is. And it doesn?t apply to this situation. How is Agento a scam artist? Who is she scamming? You are arguing against a construct of your own design that has nothing to do with what I said, and don?t even back it up with anything but conjecture.

Nowhere did I say that everyone who, say, spoke out about the #metoo thing in a hypocrite, as you seem to imply I?m saying.

You just selectively decide those studies and statistics don?t apply, completely arbitrarily I might add.

Oh, so you think that if you grow up in the Bible Belt as a gay youth surrounded by the most staunch of Christian fundamentalists, you wouldn?t suppress your gay urges and possibly overcompensate by vocally opposing the gays? Yeah, geez, what am I thinking? What a stretch. Obviously the only possible explaination is that gay politicians bash other gays for wealth and power. That makes sense, they incite hatred against their own lifestyle out of greed.

I was addressing this:

I found that those who most vehemently attack political dispositions are often guilty of exactly what they proport to stand against. I remember plenty of cases of male senators defending 'Christian' values found in hotel rooms with callboys, and tons of cases of very vocal male allies of the feminist movement found to be sex offenders.

And This:

I was talking about people who are EXTREMELY vocal about their proported believes. I never said that the majority of people are hypocrits.

Most people who are extremely vocal about their beliefs are genuine. Then of course there are con artists who imitate those people for personal gain. Of course you have those who are overcompensating, but those are far fewer than those who are just plain liars.

More often than not, the Senators are not actually overcompensating, they are just con artists. That is what I was addressing. Looking at their history, financials and their voting records show that to be the case in many of the circumstances when these scandals evolve. How many of them have affairs gay straight or otherwise? How many of them have other records of dishonesty not related to their " family values" scam? How many of them have gained tremendously by putting on this act? At the end of the day after evaluating all the data involved, that was only one of the MANY things they scammed people on. They are just like ALex Jones in regards to what he told the Judge."It is all just an act". That is the reality there in the vast majority of the cases.

I do not know enough about Agento to determine if she is a con artist, victim who became abuser, or if she is even guilty at this point. I would need more information to make that assessment so I am not going to speculate on that.

I did not selectively decide those studies do not apply, I just stated that the percentages show that there were higher percentages than in the general population, but it was still not a majority by any measure. You should reevaluate the data. Yes, there are plenty of click bait articles that attempt to skew/ misrepresent the data to mean something else, but that is not what the actual data stated.

the December King:

I certainly didn't mean to imply that other harassers like Weinstein should be absolved of their crimes. I was just interested in seeing if we are to look at Argento's (admittedly supposed) crime, that she gets some degree of absolution and sympathy because she was a victim, and how that might apply to someone like Weinstein, were he found to be a victim.

So, if Argento did indeed commit a crime here, does her case warrant salvage in your eyes, as it's not as serious a series of offenses as Weinstein's (or rather as numerous)?

If she had voluntarily had sex with some she knew, or should have suspected might be a minor, she's due a criminal conviction and sentencing with whatever relevant guidelines in jurisdiction. At best, her prior experiences might count towards potential mitigation under those guidelines.

In terms of "sympathy", some of which may count for legal mitigation... well, many crimes are a much more complex than the basic headlines. A 30 year old and a 17 year old can genuinely love (or lust for) each other, or a 30 year old can seduce a 17 year old, or a 17 year old can seduce a 30-year-old. Is someone careless or cynically exploitative? Malicious or messed-up? These are all things that should alter how we view the severity of an offence. I don't think we should always just see "Adult and child have sex" and stop thinking beyond throwing the book at the adult, because there are all sorts of shades of unpleasantness, intent, etc. We can accept the necessity of a conviction, whilst also feeling sorry for the convicted under the circumstances.

Having been abused is only part of the wider picture. Specifically in terms of Weinstein, even before this sexual scandal, he was known to be an aggressive, short-tempered bully, and some people who worked with him were afraid of him. The stories about what he did to those women, if true, show him to be spectacularly unpleasant. I don't think if he were abused as a child it would count for very much at all, because the overall pattern of his character and behaviour is so poor it hugely outweighs the mitigation.

Apparently she's come out and claimed that he sexually assaulted her now.

Whitbane:
Apparently she's come out and claimed that he sexually assaulted her now.

The leak of her texts a few weeks ago included one where she stated he "jumped" her, so in a sense it's not exactly a new claim.

Lil devils x:
Most people who are extremely vocal about their beliefs are genuine. Then of course there are con artists who imitate those people for personal gain. Of course you have those who are overcompensating, but those are far fewer than those who are just plain liars.

More often than not, the Senators are not actually overcompensating, they are just con artists. That is what I was addressing. Looking at their history, financials and their voting records show that to be the case in many of the circumstances when these scandals evolve. How many of them have affairs gay straight or otherwise? How many of them have other records of dishonesty not related to their " family values" scam? How many of them have gained tremendously by putting on this act? At the end of the day after evaluating all the data involved, that was only one of the MANY things they scammed people on. They are just like ALex Jones in regards to what he told the Judge."It is all just an act". That is the reality there in the vast majority of the cases.

I do not know enough about Agento to determine if she is a con artist, victim who became abuser, or if she is even guilty at this point. I would need more information to make that assessment so I am not going to speculate on that.

I did not selectively decide those studies do not apply, I just stated that the percentages show that there were higher percentages than in the general population, but it was still not a majority by any measure. You should reevaluate the data. Yes, there are plenty of click bait articles that attempt to skew/ misrepresent the data to mean something else, but that is not what the actual data stated.

So, you are saying you have essentially nothing to back up your claims other than your word, got it. At least you still don't seem to care to back up your claims in any meaningful way. All you do is repeat over and over again what you believe, without a shred of evidence.

It makes literally no sense that those Senators are con artists. You'd have to be insanely paranoid to believe that someone would do something that damaging to themselves out of some moustache twirling evil scheme to scam people for family value bucks. That's an insane idea. Alex Jones is a scam artist, but what he does has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

She groomed a 13 year old boy. If the genders were reversed, nobody would even ask 'if' someone was guilty. What else do you need to know? The evidence is crushing.

The interesting part is how staunchly opposed those gay senators are to gay rights issues. How vocal in many cases. That's the guilt talking. It's pretty clear that you look at politicians as a lot smarter and cunning than they are. Most of them relatively stupid, simple people forged by a very conservative and regressive surrounding who had the shred of charisma to be voted into a position of power. They don't run damn machiavellian schemes to bash the gays for profit even though they are gay themselves. That's sheer, unadulturated paranoia.

the December King:
Does anybody know if Weinstein was abused sexually as a child?

It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Agema:
It looks extremely bad for her one way or another.

If he was sending her pornographic material from an early age, arguably it strengthens her case that he jumped her. Although as you say, having sex with a minor is problematic any which way. Anything short of being the victim of him assaulting her means she's failed due diligence to check the age of someone she had good reason to suspect may have been too young. And that's guilty. The payout looks awfully incriminating.

If it was "just" statutory rape, she could hypothetically recover. If Roman Polanski can get away with raping a fourteen-year-old girl for thirty-odd years, she can get away with having sex with a 17-year-old. Criminal charges are highly unlikely so long as she remains in Europe.

But the known facts as they stand right now really don't look good for her, no. The settlement is a big red flag, and the timeline of Jimmy Barnett's career - which dovetailed right after 2013, when the alleged assault occurred - indicate that whatever did happen was serious enough to derail his then-flourishing career.

Davroth:

Lil devils x:
Most people who are extremely vocal about their beliefs are genuine. Then of course there are con artists who imitate those people for personal gain. Of course you have those who are overcompensating, but those are far fewer than those who are just plain liars.

More often than not, the Senators are not actually overcompensating, they are just con artists. That is what I was addressing. Looking at their history, financials and their voting records show that to be the case in many of the circumstances when these scandals evolve. How many of them have affairs gay straight or otherwise? How many of them have other records of dishonesty not related to their " family values" scam? How many of them have gained tremendously by putting on this act? At the end of the day after evaluating all the data involved, that was only one of the MANY things they scammed people on. They are just like ALex Jones in regards to what he told the Judge."It is all just an act". That is the reality there in the vast majority of the cases.

I do not know enough about Agento to determine if she is a con artist, victim who became abuser, or if she is even guilty at this point. I would need more information to make that assessment so I am not going to speculate on that.

I did not selectively decide those studies do not apply, I just stated that the percentages show that there were higher percentages than in the general population, but it was still not a majority by any measure. You should reevaluate the data. Yes, there are plenty of click bait articles that attempt to skew/ misrepresent the data to mean something else, but that is not what the actual data stated.

So, you are saying you have essentially nothing to back up your claims other than your word, got it. At least you still don't seem to care to back up your claims in any meaningful way. All you do is repeat over and over again what you believe, without a shred of evidence.

It makes literally no sense that those Senators are con artists. You'd have to be insanely paranoid to believe that someone would do something that damaging to themselves out of some moustache twirling evil scheme to scam people for family value bucks. That's an insane idea. Alex Jones is a scam artist, but what he does has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

She groomed a 13 year old boy. If the genders were reversed, nobody would even ask 'if' someone was guilty. What else do you need to know? The evidence is crushing.

The interesting part is how staunchly opposed those gay senators are to gay rights issues. How vocal in many cases. That's the guilt talking. It's pretty clear that you look at politicians as a lot smarter and cunning than they are. Most of them relatively stupid, simple people forged by a very conservative and regressive surrounding who had the shred of charisma to be voted into a position of power. They don't run damn machiavellian schemes to bash the gays for profit even though they are gay themselves. That's sheer, unadulturated paranoia.

First of all, you are the one not offering sources here, I will gladly do so.

Second, Goodman, for example was not really "in the closet" or repressed here, plenty of people not only knew about what he was doing, they helped him and enabled him to do it. He was just a liar, and bisexual opportunist who not only invited people to join in a threesome with him and his wife, he also sexually assaulted them and numerous OTHER PEOPLE knew about it and covered it up for personal gain. This is not my " paranoia" this is what has been reported to have actually happened:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/wes-goodman-religious-conservatism-inc-tony-perkins/

How many were willing to " cover this up" for him? Were they also doing so out of guilt or were they just willing to scam people instead?

But see the thing is scamming is what many of these guys actually do, so this is not something that is all that uncommon and should be of no surprise when it is just another one doing it and they cover for one another to keep the scam going:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-aaron-schock-indicted-20161110-story.html#
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/12/texas-congressman-steve-stockman-found-guilty-felony-charges/
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/arkansas-state-senator-jeremy-hutchinson-indicted-wire-and-tax-fraud-charges
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-hunter-indict-20180821-story.html
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/08/republican-rep-from-new-york-indicted-on-securities-fraud-charges/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial-verdict.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/tim-murphy-resigns-abortion-scandal.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rep-pat-meehan-resigns-promises-to-repay-sexual-harassment-settlement_us_5ae35eeee4b04aa23f22fc98

Just to name a few.. there are PLENTY more where that came from.
If it is such an insane idea, why do so many of them do it? They are just lying to people for profit and could care less about what they are promoting for the most part. That is the reality here. In addition, Alex Jones has much to do with this as well, as how many of these people has he promoted and how many of them have appeared on his show? Republicans have legitimized his scamming so he can scam more people. They help each other accomplish their goals.

https://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/how_shameless_christian_con_artists_took_over_the_gop_partner/

Please provide actual evidence to back up your claims, as I have yet to see any evidence as of yet. Those same senators are opposed to not only gay rights, but abortion, extra marital affairs, lying, cheating and stealing, yet that is what liars do. They lie. How many people actually paid attention to the thousands of lawsuits against Trump or listened to all his business partners who said he scammed them? DO you think they listen to these guys?



No of course they didn't and now they elected a conman to the highest office possible. That is the reality here, that is not paranoia, it is what we are seeing happen here over and over and over again. It makes plenty of sense because con artists are out to get away with what they can get away with for profit. It is profitable for them to do so they do it and could care less who they hurt. DO you think Goodman cares he was harming the gay community? Of course not, he never cared about them or the " Christians " he was supposed to represent. It was never about any of them, it was always about what he could get away with for profit.

ALSO, Please provide this " ample" evidence, as I have yet to see that actually happen. I still need more data. Although I already stated how I feel about her other actions in the previous thread I linked above on this, I have yet been presented with evidence of actual grooming here. Him sending out unsolicited nude pics of himself =\= grooming in any way. All the 12 year old girls who 13 yr old boys forced their nudes upon were not grooming them either. A ridiculous amount of teens seem to want to show everyone their junk and that has nothing to do with the person they chose to send them to. "Unsolicited" means they did not ask for them, nor did they want them, so how does that amount to grooming? And although I took him for his word in the beginning, the more I hear about this, the more I am wondering if she instigated this at all.

In most places consensual sex with a 17yr old and a 30yr old is not even against the law. I do not approve of the coercion factor, if that was actually involved, but how do we know that was even at play here and not some guy chasing after his crush and then attempting to blackmail her if she didn't do as he wanted? When this first was brought up, I didn't see any reason not to believe him. Him sending out unsolicited nudes on the other hand says more about him than it does her.

Most girls who receive unsolicited nudes from a male do nothing. They ignore it and do not respond. I would expect her to respond the same way most girls do. If you report the kid for doing so, you could cause serious long term problems for them due to existing laws. What if the kid freaked out after she told his parents and killed himself? DO you want some stupid kid sending out his junk to people to get into trouble, or even worse, have the kid be charged with distributing child porn? Yes that actually happens too:

https://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/sexting-and-law-press-send-turn-teenagers-registered-sex-offenders
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/21/n-c-just-prosecuted-a-teenage-couple-for-making-child-porn-of-themselves/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9452cd2c14d2
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/teenage-girl-14-explicit-picture-selfie-distributing-child-pornography-charges-police-rice-county-a8127001.html

No, I do not think awkward teens exploring their own identity, self image and sexuality should be charged with child porn for sending nudes of themselves. That is what happens when you actually report them for doing so. Not wanting to receive the images does not mean you want to screw up the kids life. Most just blow it off as them doing stupid teenage things because that is what they do at that age and ignore it. These kids do not need to be considered sex offenders for doing stupid teen things like nude selfies.

https://www.livescience.com/10681-teen-brains-wired-risk.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teens-brains-are-wired-for-risky-behavior-study/

My response is relatively unchanged. Namely:

* Asia Argento and Rose McGowan didn't start Metoo. Tarana Burke did, but she's black and not a Hollywood star, so guess who got left off the cover of Time. Alyssa Milano started the hashtag after being encouraged by a friend familiar with Burke's use of the phrase.

* The Metoo movement was originally about illustrating the prevalence and normality of sexual abuse in society and encouraging survivors to share their stories as a means of both activism and healing. When the hashtag launched, it recieved 12 million posts within 24 hours. Tarana Burke's goal since then has been to create an online resource to help survivors of sexual violence.

* Hollywood is a place that inherently tolerates and facilitates sexual abuse. Believing that this whole thing begins or ends with getting rid of Harvey Weinstein or a small number of "bad people", and then all the sexual abuse will be gone, is naive. At this point, you cannot be certain that anyone in a position of power or social authority has not exploited that power to sexually abuse someone. The fact that certain Hollywood stars have sought to redirect focus to themselves while also (in all probability) being enormous trash people should not surprise anyone. It's Hollywood, what the fuck did you think was going to happen?

* The current President has been recorded admitting to sexual assault. He's been accused by at least one underage girl of raping her at a party hosted by a close friends of his (incidentally, a convicted sex offender who used his wealth to target underage victims) and has a long history of sexual harassment and assault complaints. It's noticeable that a lot of the people who are suddenly very angry about Asia Argento have either never spoken out about this, or actively defended Trump from similar allegations.

At this point, if you are surprised that anyone in a position of power or influence is exposed as a sex abuser, then you haven't been listening very hard, and you should probably have paid more attention to what the metoo movement and hashtag was actually about.

bastardofmelbourne:

...the timeline of Jimmy Barnett's career - which dovetailed right after 2013, when the alleged assault occurred - indicate that whatever did happen was serious enough to derail his then-flourishing career.

This is speculative overreach.

One may offer equally valid alternatives: Bennett's career may have dovetailed because of a generalised decline such as many child actors have as they approach majority, or perhaps because he was experiencing personal issues interfering with his work. (If Argento's claim is true and he assaulted her, then him being in a troubled place might explain why.)

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here