Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + + + + + + +
→Does Conservapedia have a single position on the accusations against Moore?
I ask because the article and talk pages here and elsewhere on Conservapedia continue to equivocate between several positions, in decreasing order of acceptance: 1) The accusations are all false. 2) The accusations of criminal activity are false, while the others are just descriptions of behavior that was acceptable at the time, if not still acceptable. 3) Moore has not been found guilty at trial (truth of claims is unknowable until then). 4) The accusations only represent a misdemeanor, or were from too long ago to be relevant, or are not as bad as things that others have done. 5) Moore has redeemed himself through his subsequent career and actions. 6) Moore is still a better choice than his opponent.
I ask because the article and talk pages here and elsewhere on Conservapedia continue to equivocate between several positions, in decreasing order of acceptance: 1) The accusations are all false. 2) The accusations of criminal activity are false, while the others are just descriptions of behavior that was acceptable at the time, if not still acceptable. 3) Moore has not been found guilty at trial (truth of claims is unknowable until then). 4) The accusations only represent a misdemeanor, or were from too long ago to be relevant, or are not as bad as things that others have done. 5) Moore has redeemed himself through his subsequent career and actions. 6) Moore is still a better choice than his opponent.
Only positions 1 and 2 deny the criminal charges in the accusations; 3 withholds all judgement until after a criminal trial; the rest in effect concede that they are "true, but..." with that last position seeming to accept the accusations on their face without excuse. Moore himself appears to take position 2, in that he denies inappropriate or illegal activity but does recall appropriate courting of young women with their parent's permission(s), which is the essence of most of the 'accusations'. Different individuals who post here seem to have different beliefs about the matter, which continue to be reflected in the article and I feel that causes confusion. Moore himself continues to deny any illegal or morally inappropriate behavior, so I don't see why so much of the discussion seems to be of the "true, but..." variety. Given Andrew Schlafly's continued active support of Moore and interest in the matter, I wonder if there is or should be a single Conservapedia position represented here that does not undercut Moore's statements?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)
Only positions 1 and 2 deny the criminal charges in the accusations; 3 withholds all judgement until after a criminal trial; the rest in effect concede that they are "true, but..." with that last position seeming to accept the accusations on their face without excuse. Moore himself appears to take position 2, in that he denies inappropriate or illegal activity but does recall appropriate courting of young women with their parent's permission(s), which is the essence of most of the 'accusations'. Different individuals who post here seem to have different beliefs about the matter, which continue to be reflected in the article and I feel that causes confusion. Moore himself continues to deny any illegal or morally inappropriate behavior, so I don't see why so much of the discussion seems to be of the "true, but..." variety. Given Andrew Schlafly's continued active support of Moore and interest in the matter, I wonder if there is or should be a single Conservapedia position represented here that does not undercut Moore's statements?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)
:Honestly, I think all those points are true, at least to an extent. It is true that these are still claims, and nothing's been proven -- thus, we shouldn't jump to judgment on this like the establishment and Dems have been doing. At the same time, there are serious holes and problems in the accusers' stories -- such as the whole yearbook signature thing; the fact that one of the accusers who said she didn't see Moore since the 1970s actually saw him when he took her divorce case in the 1990s and apparently had no problem with it; the fact that these accusers (who call themselves "Republicans" and "Trump supporters") have only been going to liberals like WaPo and leftist Democrat Party activist Gloria Allred, neither of whom have any respect/credibility from real conservatives; and the fact that many women and others who knew Moore even since the 1970s and before have spoken up defending him (of course, the MSM won't report this), etc.
:In addition, these allegations are clearly politicized. They were reported only 1 month before the election, and all the accusers ran to left-wingers who clearly oppose Moore and/or other strong conservatives. Allred has a history of bringing alleged victims in front of cameras when a politician is running for office and threatens to sue (Swartzenegger, Trump, now Moore), but then acting like the allegations never happened after those candidates win their elections (Allred also was a delegate for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat convention). How can we believe these claims when they are clearly politicized? And how can we think clearly on these claims when they are politicized? Honestly, it could very well be that Moore pursued young women when he was younger -- but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so so long as you don't abuse them. The fact he apparently asked their parents shows he adhered to chivalry, something the Left has thrown out the window.
:The double standards in these allegations are obvious -- even if these allegations were true, Moore still would be one of the most moral people in Washington. Simply pursuing young women isn't inherently wrong, even if it's distasteful and taboo (and it's also true that in some places in the South, it's not taboo). What matters is if you honor God when doing so. Some of these allegations very clearly are sinful. However, how many Representatives and Senators are also guilty of sexual misconduct equal to or worse than Moore? More than you'd expect: [http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html][https://www.axios.com/congress-payout-sexual-misconduct-2510322900.html][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/14/msnbc-sexual-harassment-speier-u-s-house-paid-15-million-secret-victims/] Why is Moore getting all the condemnation for claims that aren't even proven, while nobody in Congress is getting the same treatment, even Al Franken, who admitted to his actions when confronted with photographic evidence (and Republicans are more OK with Democrat Franken than one of their own candidates)? And why are we only talking about allegations of rape, attempted rape, and groping? How many members of Congress have committed adultery? How many have had premarital sex? How many have gotten divorced? How many swear and blaspheme God? These are all terrible sins, but why are none of these people resigning, even though it's painfully clear who these people are? These people are doing these things ''now'', while Moore did these things ''40 years ago.'' It's double standards.
:And yes, it's true that Moore is conservative. He's hated by McConnell and the establishment -- they would love to replace Moore with a worthless establishment crony who makes a few conservative-sounding statements during campaign years but nothing else. There is no reason to replace a great candidate with another crony simply upon unproven allegations which (for the most part) are not even that serious *if* true. All these positions you mentioned, Brossa, are valid and overlooked points, and that's why I essentially repeated them again in my long explanation. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 19 November 2017 (EST)