George H.W. Bush. RIP

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

And now disabled people "arent sexual in any way shape or form" or is that just if they're old? In which case then why mention disability?

Where did Bush admit to having sexually assaulted anyone?

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 

I guess he's one year off 93 so it must be OK for him

I couldn't watch it all since I'm at work but I get the gist.

That guy is a monster if true.  And of course there's monsters out there in their 90's. 

I was speaking of the majority of people that age and being disabled.  Not the one in a million that you posted.  And no, I don't think Bush falls into that "one in a million" category.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I thought it was about libido?

It is for the vast majority of people.  There's always that "one in a million" person that does that sort of thing out of some perverted mental disorder.

 

 

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I couldn't watch it all since I'm at work but I get the gist.

That guy is a monster if true.  And of course there's monsters out there in their 90's. 

I was speaking of the majority of people that age and being disabled.  Not the one in a million that you posted.  And no, I don't think Bush falls into that "one in a million" category.

 

 

You really think its a one in a million thing for the elderly to commit a sex crime?  Are you sure you want to hang onto that?  How about this, you live in Florida right?  Go to one of those 'sex offenders in your area' things, I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You really think its a one in a million thing for the elderly to commit a sex crime?  Are you sure you want to hang onto that?  How about this, you live in Florida right?  Go to one of those 'sex offenders in your area' things, I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Ok, so even if it's 1 in 100k does that change the point?  Or even 1 in 1000?

Even at 1 in 1000 (It's nowhere near that high, btw).  That would suggest that 99.9% of elderly folks don't think that way. 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Tampa-Florida.html

OK, so we have 82 yr old Richard Rider

80 yr old Sixto Santiago

70 yr old Michael Jarbo

80 yr old Paul Nidasio

And on it goes, you can go through the whole list if you like...and thats just in the Tampa area.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Ok, so even if it's 1 in 100k does that change the point?  Or even 1 in 1000?

Even at 1 in 1000 (It's nowhere near that high, btw).  That would mean 99.9% of elderly folks don't think that way. 

 

 

 

These ever-expanding goalposts man   First it was a medical impossibility, then it became a one in a million thing, now even 1-1000 is being bandied around

[Lio]

21 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I agree.  There's a difference between touching someone's rear during a photograph (which let's be frank, could very well be unintentional...we don't know that either way).  Vs. what Trump has been accused of.

I'm sure we've all taken photos with groups of people and wondered if someone's hands were in the proper places, etc etc.  It happens.   Now if a person tells that person to put there hands in a different place and that person refuses and keeps there hands there, then obviously that could be more serious.  

 

1. No one has ever put a hand on a woman's rear unintentionally (unless they take their hand back straight away).

2. It is never okay to put your hand on a woman's rear unless you're romantically involved with her. A woman should never have to tell anyone to please remove their hand. It goes without saying you can't do that. Plus, it often involves a man who is in a power position. I wouldn't like having to tell the president to keep his hands off me. No woman should be forced in a situation like that.

Would you like it if another guy would 'unintentionally' put his hand on your gf's/wife's/daughter's rear? I don't think so. So that proves it's not like: oh, my hand just wandered off without me realizing it. Every man knows full well it's not completely innocent.Or the other way around, would you like being groped by the ass by a woman, let's say by Hillary Clinton? (Before you start off dreaming about some hot girl grabbing your ass )

Touching someone's rear is nowhere near rape, of course, but it still is not okay, and I'm sure Bush sr was a dirty old man, and has been for a very long time.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Ok, so even if it's 1 in 100k does that change the point?  Or even 1 in 1000?

Even at 1 in 1000 (It's nowhere near that high, btw).  That would suggest that 99.9% of elderly folks don't think that way. 

But how can you then categorically deny that Bush did it intentionally?

[Ace Nova]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

These ever-expanding goalposts man   First it was a medical impossibility, then it became a one in a million thing, now even 1-1000 is being bandied around

I never said it was medically impossible.  I said the opposite.  I've been talking about the vast/overwhelming majority of people the entire time and you're posting specific individuals and attempt to show that it's "likely" that older people are "perverts" when statistically the EXACT opposite is true.  Even at 1 in 1000 which, I said was way off, my point stands that 99.9% of elderly folks are not perverts.

Talk about a straw man argument.  

 

[Lio]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

I never said it was medically impossible.  I said the opposite.  I've been talking about the vast/overwhelming majority of people the entire time and you're posting specific individuals and attempt to show that it's "likely" that older people are "perverts" when statistically the EXACT opposite is true.  Even at 1 in 1000 which, I said was way off, my point stands that 99.9% of elderly folks are not perverts.

Talk about a straw man argument.  

 

Old people that grab women's asses, are perverts. It's quite simple.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

These ever-expanding goalposts man   First it was a medical impossibility, then it became a one in a million thing, now even 1-1000 is being bandied around

Agree completely.

But you don't "expand the goalposts", that would make the goal larger and make it easier for your opponent. You move the goalposts, aka change the rules of the game in the middle of the match making it impossible for your opponent to score.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I never said it was medically impossible.  I said the opposite.  I've been talking about the vast/overwhelming majority of people the entire time and you're posting specific individuals and attempt to show that it's "likely" that older people are "perverts" when statistically the EXACT opposite is true.  Even at 1 in 1000 which, I said was way off, my point stands that 99.9% of elderly folks are not perverts.

Talk about a straw man argument.  

You said 93 yr olds are not sexual in any way because they don't have a libido.  That would make it medically impossible surely?  And what on earth difference does it make that the vast majority aren't perverts, thats not anyones argument, that the vast majority are perverts or even sexually capable, your argument is just shrinking in its boldness to where its gone from elderly people not being sexual in any way to 'the vast majority aren't'.

Also, libido has nothing to do with ones ability to commit a sex crime.  You could have no nuts and no dick and still be able to commit a sex crime.  Whether you can do it or not just relates to follow through, just because someone is impotent or incapable does not mean they can't think about sex, its why impotence in men is famously such a frustrating thing that drives people to counselling and all sorts.

[Len Cnut]

15 minutes ago, Lio said:

Old people that grab women's asses, are perverts. It's quite simple.

You hear that boys, you're fair game

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Agree completely.

But you don't "expand the goalposts", that would make the goal larger and make it easier for your opponent. You move the goalposts, aka change the rules of the game in the middle of the match making it impossible for your opponent to score.

The striker is an elderly impotent disabled person

[Ace Nova]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But how can you then categorically deny that Bush did it intentionally?

Oh, that's my opinion based on the circumstances.  No one can really know what was really going on in his mind.  I just highly doubt his intentions were "sexual" in nature.

 

[SoulMonster]

I passed a girl once, and let my hand glide through her golden hair as I went past. Feeling the long strands slide between my fingers as the distance between us increased. Like liquid gold in my hands. A feeble attempt at making my feelings known. It was in kindergarden. 

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I passed a girl once, and let my hand glide through her golden hair as I went past. Feeling the long strands slide between my fingers as the distance between us increased. Like liquid gold in my hands. A feeble attempt at making my feelings known. It was in kindergarden. 

Always knew you was a wrong un

[Ace Nova]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You said 93 yr olds are not sexual in any way because they don't have a libido.  That would make it medically impossible surely?  And what on earth difference does it make that the vast majority aren't perverts, thats not anyones argument, that the vast majority are perverts or even sexually capable, your argument is just shrinking in its boldness to where its gone from elderly people not being sexual in any way to 'the vast majority aren't'.

Also, libido has nothing to do with ones ability to commit a sex crime.  You could have no nuts and no dick and still be able to commit a sex crime.  Whether you can do it or not just relates to follow through, just because someone is impotent or incapable does not mean they can't think about sex, its why impotence in men is famously such a frustrating thing that drives people to counselling and all sorts.

Again with your straw man arguments, Len.   

I said MOST.  as in probably over 99% And most probably aren't sexual because they don't have much of a libido.  Not all.  If you want to hang on to your argument that maybe 1% of elderly folks have perverted minds and are sexual predators, by all means do. 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh, that's my opinion based on the circumstances.  No one can really know what was really going on in his mind.

Same here actually, in terms of whether he did it or not fuck knows, I was more interested in the arguments being presented on here. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh, that's my opinion based on the circumstances.  No one can really know what was really going on in his mind.  I just highly doubt his intentions were "sexual" in nature.

 

I think most men here have a pretty vivid idea of what went through in his mind 

I think it was deliberate, and I think he did it because he liked touching women's asses. And I don't think he considered it that bad. Unfortunately.

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Always knew you was a wrong un

At least wrong in hoping I would be getting anything.

Or even knowing what I was hoping to get. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Again with your straw man arguments, Len.   

I don't even know what that means if I'm honest, I should probably look it up

Quote

I said MOST.  as in probably over 99% And most probably aren't sexual because they don't have much of a libido.  Not all.  If you want to hang on to your argument that maybe 1% of elderly folks have perverted minds and are sexual predators, by all means do. 

You did not say most. 

Quote

Have you ever had a conversation with a 93 year-old disabled man?  They aren't "sexual" in any way, shape or form

You later started to say most, along with a variety of other adjustments but to begin with you were not saying most, which is why the statement seemed so strange and objectionable, we can only go by what you say, you see.

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, Lio said:

1. No one has ever put a hand on a woman's rear unintentionally (unless they take their hand back straight away).

2. It is never okay to put your hand on a woman's rear unless you're romantically involved with her. A woman should never have to tell anyone to please remove their hand. It goes without saying you can't do that. Plus, it often involves a man who is in a power position. I wouldn't like having to tell the president to keep his hands off me. No woman should be forced in a situation like that.

Would you like it if another guy would 'unintentionally' put his hand on your gf's/wife's/daughter's rear? I don't think so. So that proves it's not like: oh, my hand just wandered off without me realizing it. Every man knows full well it's not completely innocent.Or the other way around, would you like being groped by the ass by a woman, let's say by Hillary Clinton? (Before you start off dreaming about some hot girl grabbing your ass )

Touching someone's rear is nowhere near rape, of course, but it still is not okay, and I'm sure Bush sr was a dirty old man, and has been for a very long time.

1.  That's not really true.  I guarantee mistakes happen.  People are all different sizes, weights, forms, etc.  Someone could easily think their hand is on someone's lower back and possibly be touching their upper rear end and not know it.   Or the other person may not be comfortable with someone touching their lower back and they may consider it their upper "butt" while someone else just considers it their lower back, etc etc etc etc etc.

2. I agree with just about everything here.  Again, it's about "intent".

And yes, I've had both guys and girls go a little too low on my back/rear when it either came to a joke, a picture, etc etc...and I let them know it and it was over with. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't even know what that means if I'm honest, I should probably look it up

You did not say most. 

You later started to say most, along with a variety of other adjustments but to begin with you were not saying most, which is why the statement seemed so strange and objectionable, we can only go by what you say, you see.

Seriously?  

Ok, to clarify.  99.9% ( or more ) of disabled elderly folks are (most likely) not perverts.

 

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Seriously?  

Ok, to clarify.  99.9% ( or more ) of disabled elderly folks are (most likely) not perverts.

 

Out of interest, what percentage of non-disabled young folk do you consider to be perverts?  I mean just with your offhand mathematics, I won't hold you to any of it.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Out of interest, what percentage of non-disabled young folk do you consider to be perverts?  I mean just with your offhand mathematics, I won't hold you to any of it.

Probably slightly more because of a higher libido/sex drive etc.  Still a very low % compared to the overall population though.  No idea of the exact numbers or if it's factual...just an educated guess based on common sense.

 

 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Probably slightly more because of a higher libido/sex drive etc.  Still a very low % compared to the overall population though.  No idea of the exact numbers or if it's factual...just an educated guess based on common sense.

So, by your own logic, when assessing someone who is accused of sexual assault, regardless of age etc, it should factor heavily in our judgement that he is a human being and, as such, unlikely to be a sex crime because, statistically, the vast majority ain't like that?  because that is more or less what you were doing with the Bush argument.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Len Cnut