Matt Geatz story gets stranger than before.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Atsbhct

Believe it or not, in Florida, where this pervert lives, it's 18. You'd figure it be 12 or something in that messed up state.

In many southern states you can marry them at 12-14 but can't legally bang until 16 or 17. Maybe. Of course, if you marry then banging is then legal. ? Or maybe it's the opposite. Daddy's daughter got married off to a nice older man who owns property and will set her up for life, if she's fertile.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

In many southern states you can marry them at 12-14

For example?

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: neo96

It matters every single time.

Not usually to democrats. Unless it's a republican that is being accused.

You should understand that by now, since there is always a brand new example of it delivered daily to the public by those people.

Yes, unfortunately they are the crowning achievement in the dark art of hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SirHardHarry

In many southern states you can marry them at 12-14

For example?

That was more hyperbole.

malegislature.gov...

But yeah. Wiki

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's my personal opinion that true individuality, or at least a goal towards it is liberating.

Yes! In my experience and opinion, true individuality is the greatest liberation of all. And by individuality, I don't even necessarily mean being nonconforming or unconventional. I mean when we do things on our terms, for our own reasons, for our own purposes, because it's only when we do for ourselves and by ourselves that we learn about ourselves, grow in knowledge and character, and actually be ourselves.

It also makes connections with other free spirits more rewarding even if we're not in constant agreement or more times than not in disagreement. Though, I recognize we're all different, maybe some do find enrichment in different ways, and I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't find groups to find community in... Maybe just not hard-line ideology.

Ideally, we would all seek out those connections and free spirits that enrich our lives, and walk away from those that dishearten or devalue our hearts and souls. Or at least minimize our contact, and not let toxic people or relationships take a toll. So much easier said than done sometimes.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: neo96

It matters every single time.

NOT TO DEMOCRATS! Unless it's a republican that is being accused.

You should understand that by now, since there is always a brand new example of it delivered daily to the public by democrats.

You say something?

a reply to: SirHardHarry
Do you consider Massachusetts to be a southern state?

In any case, even in states which allow marriage below the age of majority, parental approval is required. So your point is moot.

a reply to: Phage

So, as I said. Facts and truth are not the same thing.

Technically, no; the facts confirm or prove the truth, and the truth comprises the facts.

Truth depends on the person, facts do not.

No. You are conflating belief and truth. I can believe that something is true, knowing that I do not have all the facts and cannot know it is the truth. I can differentiate between believing something is true and knowing something is true, and so can everyone.

We can all also understand that because we have accepted something as truth, that we cannot force it on others as truth. In that sense, it is "our" truth, but it is not "the" truth.

We're not children. We can make appropriate distinctions and differentiations. Not doing so only confuses and misrepresents... well... everything.

a reply to: Boadicea

I can believe that something is true, knowing that I do not have all the facts and cannot know it is the truth.

So a Christian can doubt that the resurrection of Christ is a fact and still be a Christian? Interesting.

Then you must deal with cognitive dissonance on a frequent basis. Coping with fact, truth, and faith.

What, in the name of God, are you people talking about?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

Facts are not moving targets.

I disagree... but let me explain/expand.

The Washington Post reports that anonymous sources say blahblahblah. The NY Times reports that the Washington Post reported blahblahblah. The Springfield Gazette reports that blahblahblah has been reported. The Columbia Herald reports that there is evidence of blahblahblah. Technically, every single one of those statements is true and factual, but not the whole truth, and moves farther and farther from the whole truth with each report. Hence, facts are moving targets.

And we've all seen unsubstantiated "reports" from unidentified sources repeated as fact, rather than the fact that someone said blahblahblah.

Truth is an interpretation of facts (and beliefs) and is thus dependent upon the one who spouts it.

If you're trying to say there are half-truths and semi-truths and mis-truths, which are technically correct, but not completely factual or truthful, then I agree. Which is how and why facts become moving targets.

But no, truth itself is not an interpretation of facts. Truth must conform to, confirm, adhere to the facts or it is not truth.

None of the blahblah could be taken as fact. The blahblah info might actually be a true fact, but you as a reader can't verify it. The original source is 'anonymous', and that is where fake news creeps in. 'Sources close to..' 'former officials say...', the media use cliches like this all the time, and those little phrases give them plausable deniability and opens the door for fake news with no legal reprocussions. That means zero credibility to an honest reader.

The Washington Post is in the clear because they just have to claim their source lied, plus they get to stay anonymous. Typical media strategy. The NY Times and Springfield Gazette reference the Washington Post, so they are legally clear. The Columbia Herald is 100% fake news if they claim blahblah is true on their own.

If the original source can't be determined by proper name, or if nobody can be held legally liable for blahblah, then it is foolish to take it as truth, fact, or anything more than circumstantial evidence. Ever.

Disseminating information is a hugely overlooked skill in today's world.

a reply to: Phage

So a Christian can doubt that the resurrection of Christ is a fact and still be a Christian? Interesting.

As a matter of fact, yes. As a matter of fact, there are people who believe in the teachings of Jesus, but do not believe the resurrection happened. I'm certainly not going to dictate someone's faith to them.

In fact, it was the persecution of Christians against other Christians who didn't believe what some Christians wanted them to believe which prompted the Puritan Migration and others seeking religious freedom in the "new world."

Then you must deal with cognitive dissonance on a frequent basis. Coping with fact, truth, and faith.

Nope, not at all. I don't have a problem differentiating between what I know and what I believe, what I can know and what I cannot know and do not know. If someone does not believe in the resurrection -- okay. Even if I could prove it beyond any doubt, what others believe does not determine my beliefs.

I can understand that others come to different conclusions based on the facts at hand. No cognitive dissonance anywhere there.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

None of the blahblah could be taken as fact.

Boy, there's a lot to unpack there. Yes, actually, some people can and will take the blahblahblah as the fact, rather than that the only fact is that someone reported it. Hence, WashPo reports it as the claims of an anonymous source, and others can factually report that it was reported.

The reporting of it is the fact. But it becomes muddied and less clear what the actual fact is the way it is reported. Facts are still involved though.

The blahblah info might actually be a true fact, but you as a reader can't verify it. The original source is 'anonymous', and that is where fake news creeps in. 'Sources close to..' 'former officials say...', the media use cliches like this all the time, and those little phrases give them plausable deniability and opens the door for fake news with no legal reprocussions. That means zero credibility to an honest reader.

It limits the credibility. It does not eliminate credibility. It means the reader does not know if the blahblahblah is true or not, or how much of the blahblahblah is true or not, or how much more truth there is to the blahblahblah that we don't know. Any conclusion is therefore premature and faulty.

The Washington Post is in the clear because they just have to claim their source lied, plus they get to stay anonymous. Typical media strategy. The NY Times and Springfield Gazette reference the Washington Post, so they are legally clear. The Columbia Herald is 100% fake news if they claim blahblah is true on their own.

No one in my example claimed the blahblahblah was true on it's own. Only that it is "reported" or "believed" or there is "evidence" etc. All are facts.

If the original source can't be determined by proper name, or if nobody can be held legally liable for blahblah, then it is foolish to take it as truth, fact, or anything more than circumstantial evidence. Ever.

Well of course it is. I never said otherwise. It would be just as foolish to assume that the blahblahblah is not truth, not fact, or not just circumstantial evidence. We do not know. We only know that it is fact that it was reported. But that is a fact.

Disseminating information is a hugely overlooked skill in today's world.

Um... okay. But I actually wish we had more folks disseminating information -- genuine information -- rather than the dissemination of misinformation.

originally posted by: network dude
And I understand that in order for a guy to be guilty of screwing a 17 year old girl, first and foremost, there has to actually be a girl, she actually has to be 17, or was at the time their integration can be proven, or the whole thing falls apart. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that we might do best to keep the pitchforks in the shed until some of this unravels.

My politician pitchforks are always out. And the torches.

**** them.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I find it hard to believe that a middle aged politician wanted to fool around with a 17 year old. That has never happened before and I trust him since he hasn't denied banging her.

all we need now is a 17 year old girl. Oh wait, what?

Well with deepfake they can just manufacture evidence.

Now it looks like the 17yr old nymphet is the least of Matts problems. It'll be interesting how the Republicans deal with this flustercuk.

www.rollingstone.com...

www.rawstory.com...