3 ms·

> You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. You're moving the goal

by adwn 6y ago

> You entirely missed the point. A 60 year old man sleeping with someone young enough to be his granddaughter is disgusting. Full stop. You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass". > It is LITERALLY the definition: the illegal business of recruiting, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or providing a person and especially a minor for the purpose of sex That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors.

tw04 6y ago
>You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass". I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal. >That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors. Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06 https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06 >(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.
- adwn 6y ago
  > You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up?

by adwn 6y ago

tw04 6y ago

>You're moving the goal post. At first your claim was that Minsky should have known the women were coerced because otherwise they wouldn't have had sex with him. Now that I've refuted your claim, you shifted your position to, paraphrased, "he's a criminal because what he did offends my moral compass". I didn't shift my claim in the least, you attempted to imply that prostitution is legal. I pointed out that regardless of the fact you're wrong, and it isn't legal, it's disgusting. No goal post was moved, you just keep doubling down on something that is both morally reprehensible AND illegal. >That's not a valid definition of "sex trafficking", which requires an individual to be exploited and/or coerced to perform sexual acts. We don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were exploited and/or coerced, and we don't know whether Minsky had reason to presume that the women were minors. Except it doesn't. In fact the law states the exact opposite of your claim. You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06 https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/787.06 >(g) For commercial sexual activity in which any child under the age of 18 is involved commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In a prosecution under this paragraph in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person who was subject to human trafficking, the state need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.

adwn 6y ago
> You're batting 0 trying to defend sexual predators here. This is what's wrong with public discourse in the current cancel culture climate: One cannot even discuss facts without being accused of defending the worst kinds of criminals. Way to go! What's next, are you going to accuse me of being a potential sexual predator if I don't shut up?