Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Here's a really simple question for you: Did Hastert engage in child molestation? Yes or no?
Using the definition of "13 or younger", very possibly given his multiple known victims and the fact that he preyed on them as high school freshmen.
Is it possible to be a freshman in HS at age 13? Barring being advanced a year for some reason, that's not normal. Normal age range is 14-15 during freshman year, ending at 17-18 in senior year. So you're stretching what is already a stretched definition to get the answer you want rather than the one that is more likely to be true.
Quote:
If they were all 14 or older, then perhaps not in a strict sense but then if your defense is "they were over the line -- they had a birthday!" I'm still going to consider you the same.
My position is that child molestation is based on the biological development stage of the victim, not a specific age. So I'm not looking at birthdays. I am, however, allowing for the fact that many of our laws simply look at ages. Hence the "13 or younger" bit. I'm not the one counting birthdays here, the legal system is. You have an issue with that, take it up with the folks who pass the laws.
Quote:
Out of a strict yes or not? I'd feel much more comfortable saying "yes".
Ok. I think you're engaging in an extreme stretch of both the definition and the likely circumstances, but if your comfortable assuming based solely on the information you have about the event in question that Hastert more likely did engage in sexual behavior with a person aged 13 or younger than not, then I guess that your choice.
I think that's a low probability outcome. But hey. Let's wait and see what facts actually come out and find out for sure. Crazy idea, isn't it?