Thread: Rep. Foley

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by raycarey

is 'secular progressive' supposed to be some kind of slur/taunt?

Only if you consider yourself to be one, ray...

It's on the opposite side of the US political spectrum to the religious right. It's one of the new 'boxes' used to categorise. I don't think it has any negative meaning as such.

I'd be weary if people like BoonMee or SK used it on me, they often attempt to attach a whole load of assumptions to the label and the one they use it on.

Assumptions based on what they interpret from reading a single topic sentence on the typical right-wing blog.

the oentagon has had atta's martyrdom video since the fall of 2001, but its details suddenly an conveniently turned up in rupert murdoch's newspaper.

Apparent Atta martyrdom tape emerges - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

anything to change the topic from the woodward book, iraq, and paedophile republicans

I haven't read any of the links, but I like to point out that exchanging e-mails with a 16-year old hardly qualifies as paedophilia.

Now before I get flamed, - I have noticed the hypocracy, and as far as I know the age of consent for homosexuality is 18 in the US. Still, a long shot from paedophilia. Let's be clear what the guy is accused of or not.

Depends on your definition. In one sense it defines a person a such who prefers children more than adults as sexual partners and/or having sexual fantasies. Another definition states that a person only need fantasize about acts with children. Clearly the defining characteristic of all definitions is the age of consent. Under the AOC it's illegal.

Now the tricky thing here is this: in Washington, DC, the age of consent is 16. In the boy's home state of Lousiana the age of consent is 17. If the page was 16 at the time and receiving those emails in Washington DC then no laws were broken and it can't be considered pedophilia. It could be illegal, however, if the teenager was at home in LA and received those emails.

The boy who received the e-mails was 16 in the summer of 2005 when he worked in Congress as a page. After the boy returned to his Louisiana home, the congressman e-mailed him. The teenager thought the messages were inappropriate, particularly one in which Foley asked the teen to send a picture of himself.

Apparently if the kid wasn't 17 and got these emails at home in LA then it's a case of pedophilia, which, is quite ironic considering that "Rep. Foley was the author of the key sexual predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July."

Ah, so I was wrong with age 18. Where is that than? Australia, UK?

But what we are talking about concerning Foley is sexual conduct with minors. If you talk about paedophilia, it's important to distinguish between prepubescent children and those who are sexually 'mature', but legal minors.
I'm not trying to split hairs here, it's not the same thing morally and psychologically - as you pointed out, at age 16 it's legal in one state, not another.
I'd be careful with the label "pedophile".

That's correct. When a child reaches sexual maturity it's no longer pedophilia when it involves another sexually mature person. AOC is not a national standard by varies from state to state. This is of course one of the arguments against having a national Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

But, remember, to be a pedophile one doesn't have to engage in sexual acts. Many pedophiles never do. Mere fantasy is enough to meet the criteria.

Originally Posted by stroller

I haven't read any of the links, but I like to point out that exchanging e-mails with a 16-year old hardly qualifies as paedophilia.

my understanding of the term 'paedophilia' is that it is the sexual attraction to children. not necessarily acting on that attraction, but the attraction itself. the congressman sent emails and PMs to boys inquiring about masturbation. did he act on it? who knows at this stage, but the attraction he felt has been revealed.

the boy is in question was 16 at the time. at sixteen most boys are in the process of sexually maturing, but they are hardly adults.

^ is repetitive because i responded to page 3 before reading the posts on page 4.

Phantasies are not illegal, and I don't consider phantasising about 16 year olds anything to be concerned or outraged about, unless it's the only or predominant phantasy.

On the other hand, exchanging e-mails with sexual contents is already acting on the attraction, a border is crossed here, I am not sure what the law has to say about it?

Anyway, the guy obviously knew exactly what he was talking about in his public campaign to protect minors, and he is guilty of the very thing he was fighting against.
One screwed up individual - not uncommon, unfortunately, specially in morally restrictive environments.

16 is old enough. I can't see what the fuss is.

The fuss is that he's been campaigning to protect 16 year olds from being exploited through chats on the internet.
One might look at this as a sort of contradiction?

That guy was a congressman. His status didn't let him do what he wants. If he gets the chance he wont just fantasies he will do it.

Originally Posted by stroller

One might look at this as a sort of contradiction?

The word you are looking for is irony. See my first post in this thread.

interesting posts regarding the definition of paedophilia, and i'm inclined to agree that it doesn't apply to this case. do you find 'online sexual predator of juveniles' more accurate?

i think a law was recently passed regarding 'online predators', and it will be interesting to see if a) he voted for it, and b) he will be charged and prosecuted under it.

At the Justice Department, an official said that no investigation was under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.


Several of Mr. Foley’s former colleagues demanded a criminal inquiry.
Representative Robert E. Cramer, an Alabama Democrat who was co-chairman with Mr. Foley of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, condemned Mr. Foley’s actions as “shocking and disturbing.”

“Anyone, including Foley, involved in this type of behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Mr. Cramer said.

G.O.P. Aides Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail - New York Times

and a congressional inquiry is necessary to look into the cover up.

A drop in the ocean, in the scheme of things...

What importance does an e-mail to a 16-year old in the US have compared to the stuff that's happening in Thailand on a daily basis?
I wish the yanks would shut their loud mouths and focus on something real for a minute.

^politics, man, politics. i dont know where you are from but i bet if the national context were changed you would readily understand the current level of interest.

a congressman (who prides himself as a protector of the young against sexual predators), sending sexual emails to 16 year old boys and the cover up that followed seems 'real' enough to me.

Fine.
Sorry, fair enough.
But I am getting pissed off with the US focus in here, as if there was nothing else to discuss...

shouldn't your frustration be directed at the canadian, EU, SA, and australian posters who aren't starting threads about issue that are topical in their home countries?

perhaps the military coup thread in the captain's lounge should be moved to issues?

perhaps you're just taking the piss?

I'm not taking the piss.
Honestly, I never occured to me to start a thread about a "congressional" or the equivalent election in Germany, nor about some twat parlamentarian who got caught with their pants down. There are plenty of them, believe me.

Just what is so special about the US?
God's chosen land or something?
Obviously foreign policies are of interest to anybody, but what makes you think I'd want to waste my time talking about Rep. Foley any more than what I've done already?

Fekk off and get a dose of reality.