This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

#541563
So, he deserves this.........unless the girl was considered of legal age in the state she lived in, in which case it was OK? Or do you appoint yourself judge jury and executioner to determine what is acceptable? I understand the outrage in cases where a person who is clearly a child is involved, but the bottom line is, the law determines when that is, and since those laws vary depending on where you are, I tend to question looking at it in such black and white terms. If you break the law, you should pay the penalty the law imposes, but condemning men to hell is for God to decide. As far as the number of years difference in age is concerned, to say that having a relationship with a girl who is young, but is of legal age, is wrong for one man and not another based on how old they are, has no real moral basis. It is basically a matter of cultural acceptance.
First, thanks for clarifying that I can't condemn a man to hell. Totally didn't know that. I guess my weekend plans are now blown to bits.

Second, I get there are some gray areas. But 14 doesn't seem to be one. And if your using the whole "16 is kind of sort of legal in some states" just stop. As adam and yacht have already stated, that's just....gross and weird. Throw the whole legal argument out the window (along with my newly discovered inability to condemn people to hell) and how about we agree that such an age preference for your dating life is disgusting. On top of that, my point was that every interview I've heard from him or his surrogates have used that "permission" defense over and over again. Seems weak.
#541564
Yacht Rock wrote:I’d feel confident saying that I’d not want a man who was trying to court high school girls while he was over 30 to represent me in government. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean he’s not a creeper.
Of course you do realize that Mary was almost certainly about that age when Jesus was born. Possibly even younger.

My point here is that the reason you (and a lot of other people) feel the way you do about it is neither the law or Biblical Morality. It is cultural.
#541569
That’s fine, but culturally, it’s creepy and I’m fine drawing a line in the sand there. Lol @ your JOSEPH/Mary defense. I’m guessing you don’t have a 14-16 year old daughter that a 30+ year old is trying to take on dates? Maybe you’re cool with that. As the father of a young girl who will be 14 in a few days and as a man who is over 30 but under 40, it would be super duper creepy if a dude around my age was trying to pick up on my daughter. Not the ilk I’d be hanging with.
#541573
Yacht Rock wrote:That’s fine, but culturally, it’s creepy and I’m fine drawing a line in the sand there. Lol @ your JOSEPH/Mary defense. I’m guessing you don’t have a 14-16 year old daughter that a 30+ year old is trying to take on dates? Maybe you’re cool with that. As the father of a young girl who will be 14 in a few days and as a man who is over 30 but under 40, it would be super duper creepy if a dude around my age was trying to pick up on my daughter. Not the ilk I’d be hanging with.
I was not referring to Joseph.
#541712
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.
Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting

Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.
#541715
Fascinating read on the minds of the some of the Liberty Faithful. Pretty sure I am witnessing the first death throes of American Evangelicalism - with the false piety, money lust, and complete sellout of morality for unabashed power-grabbing (pussy or otherwise).

When you are relying on the devil to advance your goals, you are going to end up advancing the devil, not your goals. Jesus fed the hungry, healed the sick, threw out the money-changers. Today's GOP does quite the opposite of that. Today, the first state ran out of CHIP money, throwing CHILDREN out of medical coverage.

And finally, many are beginning to notice - the real press, not FoxNews, which lies most of the time (just like Trump)...

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news ... 889872001/
#541717
Of course, given Liberty's embrace of the Baylor Athletic model, most of you seem to be ok with being led by someone that covered up rape, and since you will be enjoying Ray Rice at Convocation, wife beaters as well.

It really speaks to how evangelicals view women - as property, breeding stock, not worthy of equality.
#541719
Dude you’re throwing some extremely broad nets there. You’re lumping everyone connected to Liberty with the leadership of Liberty. We have an entire thread devoted to how many of us disagree with Jr on a number of things.

As for Ray Rice, he’s been invited because he made a terrible mistake and has learned from it and is now an advocate against what he did. Like it or not, we will always be a school it second chances and redemption stories.
#541725
If Roy Moore was a Democrat, we'd all be calling for his head - regardless of the quality of the evidence against him.

When the stuff about Trump came out, I said that if we supported him, we needed to apologize to Bill Clinton. That's still true. IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.
#541727
phoenix wrote:... IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.
Excellent statement. Nothing drives me more batty than a lack of argumentative consistency.
#541728
phoenix wrote:If Roy Moore was a Democrat, we'd all be calling for his head - regardless of the quality of the evidence against him.

When the stuff about Trump came out, I said that if we supported him, we needed to apologize to Bill Clinton. That's still true. IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.
Exactly This.
#541730
dbackjon wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.
Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting

Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.
And you’ve lost any and all credibility with that statement
Although you did get bonus points for actually showing up again
#541732
rhezick wrote:
phoenix wrote:... IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.
Excellent statement. Nothing drives me more batty than a lack of argumentative consistency.
I had 2 problems with Clinton. The first was he lied under oath. That’s not something to take lightly. I really didn’t care that he was getting skin fluted in the Oval Office (although some of the times when it was happening were questionable if they were to be believed.
Second, I’m sure she had a nice personality and all but I thought the Leader of the Free World could do better
#541734
Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.

Really now? I must ask you, Mr. Mann, since you are a sniveling liberal coward, what is it like to constantly seek out your safe spaces and throw malicious libel at others?

Why don't you let everyone in on your real reason for your bomb throwing here:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
resort to insults? really?

Lahren at convo should be entertaining. I already saw couple of our athletes delete their tweets when it was announced. aka not happy.
#541741
thepostman wrote:I'm always confused why people enjoy listening to people like Lahren...
Remember when people like Sam Donaldson were considered Flame Throwers and Rush Limbaugh The Fringe?
#541928
I’d love to see someone like Ben Shapiro speak at Convo, but I guess he doesn’t hump Trump enough to be offered an invitation.
#541955
jbock13 wrote:I’d love to see someone like Ben Shapiro speak at Convo, but I guess he doesn’t hump Trump enough to be offered an invitation.
I think Milo would be hilarious. He disagrees with the university on homosexuality and religion but is die hard on almost every other issue. I am really surprised they haven't had a town hall debate at convo yet with congresspeople. Bernie has already come, I think it would be good to build that relationship more. I fundamentally disagree with him on every level, but Liberty is built on discourse. I've seen some social media videos with some democrats that can debate without using the victim cards that have become too commonplace. I think these people should be encouraged. Sure, a conservative could get shown up in a debate, but I think it's far more beneficial to see these discussions hashed out. If one convo a week is going to be political, lets really prepare these students for the outside world.
#542602
The thing about is Milo is he is half true, and half provocation. I tend to agree with him more times then not, but then he just says some things to grab attention, which I don't like.
#542606
jbock13 wrote:The thing about is Milo is he is half true, and half provocation. I tend to agree with him more times then not, but then he just says some things to grab attention, which I don't like.
But that’s his shtick. He admitted as much in Australia the other day. Yes, I follow him on FB
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]

Another player that most people who post on here[…]