News | Academics

Professor David Epstein charged with incest with his daughter

Political science professor David Epstein, 46, was charged Thursday with having a sexual relationship with his daughter, 24.

He was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with one count of incest in the third degree at an arraignment hearing on Thursday. According to police, the relationship appears to have been consensual.

Epstein declined to comment when reached on his cell phone Thursday evening. His wife, a tenured professor at Columbia, also declined to comment when reached by phone.

According to a University spokesman, Epstein is now on administrative leave and is no longer teaching students. His defense attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, said the public should remember that Epstein has not yet been convicted.

“David is a respected member of the Columbia University and national academic communities, and we think he deserves privacy and respect while the investigators are investigating. We are asking people to remember that these allegations are nothing more than allegations,” he said.

Galluzzo said Epstein is no longer in custody and a trial date has not yet been set.

“We’re asking his friends in the Columbia community to support him and give him the benefit of the doubt,” he said.

An update on Epstein’s Facebook account says he is no longer listed as married.

Epstein is currently teaching a lecture class called “Scope and Methods,” as well as a class titled “Research Topics and Game Theory.”

Raahi Sheth, CC ’11, an economics and political science major—who had an Epstein as a major adviser—said he was surprised to hear of the allegations, since Epstein has always been helpful.

“He’d always been fairly jovial,” he said. “He seemed to be a very nice guy.”

news@columbiaspectator.com

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Everyone in the USA posted on

Ewwww

+1
+2
-1
murmur55 posted on

I hope that the daughter at least got an "A" in her game theory class.

+1
+6
-1
Anonymous posted on

First

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I was unaware that it would be illegal for a father to have consensual sex with his daughter over 18 or 21 years old...ah, but I forgot, that's the USA over there, isn't it, where everything sexual is illegal or one must have a licence before, during, and after. Paul Muller PhD (Thailand)

+1
0
-1
Todd posted on

hmm. I am fairly certain incest between nuclear family members is illegal in all westernized "modern" societies. Seeing as you preside in a country that sexually abuses children like no other, it make sense you would see nothing wrong with a father/daughter coupling. The consenting adult argument doesn't circumvent the extreme genetic danger of such couplings.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Actually I'm pretty sure it has more to do with prudishness, although people may say otherwise. Not only is it illegal to have sex with a relative even while using contraceptives, but it isn't illegal for any other people with inheritable genetic diseases to have children. I think it has to do with traditional sex norms and societally accepted standards of behavior.

In response to Mullerpaulm, some states in the US don't have laws against incest, it's kindof a crapshoot. I imagine it just stays on the books in some states, especially since almost no one would care enough to advocate for repealing them, but many people would oppose such a repeal.

+1
-1
-1
Todd posted on

Many genetic studies have concluded that first cousins are the point where genetic risks are acceptable. While we did not have genetics all those eons ago, we did have the horrific results of such couplings. It is not prudishness but a learned truth. A truth all other animals live by. Contraception is not 100% Thus, it makes complete sense to 99.9999 % of the populace to always have it illegal. Not to say there isn't a nut or two out of the six billion people on the planet.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Small edit:
"Thus, it makes complete sense to Todd to always have it illegal."

OR

"Thus, it makes complete sense to 99.9999% of the populate to always not do it."

Clearly the law in this case did not deter Epstein from doing the deed, so I ask you, what is the sense in spending the time and money of the people to implement and enforce this law? Does 99.9999% of the populace believe that people would otherwise be inclined to get it on with their family, if not for this type of law?

+1
-6
-1
Anonymous posted on

While I do not support incest, "all animals" do NOT live by this 'truth,' as anyone who has been around cats in heat will attest.

+1
+1
-1
Todd posted on

Actually cats, in the wild, in a natural setting do live by the rule. If you are dumb enough not to rid the litter of males their inbreeding falls on you, not them. For it is you that is breaking the natural order, not them. The level of dumb in some of these posts is quite telling.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Todd, are you an expert on cats? On sex? On laws pertaining to human sexuality?

The fact is, you are nothing but a sexually stunted bluenose. No one cares what you "think" because you can't back up your assertions by even one iota of fact.

I suggest you go get yourself a copy of "Evolution's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden and find out just what "normal" sexual behavior consists of for animals in the wild. The book will provide you with a much-needed window to reality.

+1
-3
-1
Todd posted on

I am expert enough, and well read enough to know that incest, like the smell of human feces, is meant to turn human stomachs. Some people like hot carls, does that mean that shit eating is ok? No, it just means some people are so degenerate it takes someone shitting on their face for them to get off.

Trying to pass off a book written by a transsexual looking to justify the choices that person made to make their decision more acceptable shows you to be really grasping at straws. That book and his/her theories were destroyed by the scientific community. It is quite funny that you would even bring up such a weakly, self serving book. It is not like there is an agenda in that books title or anything. ROFL.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

While Todd may sound a little bit arrogant, I find his points well stated and accurate and not nonsensical. His points about the cats, is that if you keep all 30 of them together in your one-room trailer, you would expect some inbreeding to occur. I think Todd was suggesting that in your case, with your trailer, you have changed the natural order of things.

Consider to open a window in your trailer… it will let the cats get out, reduce the incidents of incest, and will make the trailer much more tolerable. (Of course, I am assuming that your window screens are missing!)

Does common-sense require Todd to be an expert?

Todd, in the future: consider adding the fact that you are an expert, so that Bubba might take a moment to consider your argument.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

 he he he! you sir, ARE funny!

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thump that religious text Todd, I'm diggin your down low beat.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Incest is DISGUSTING. Are you people insane??!?!

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

OKaaaaaayyyyy!!!! 

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Todd is absolutely correct. In a natural environment (read: the sort of environments where gene-selecting occurred) , incest among animals NEVER occurs. Only in unnatural (read: human-made) environments where animals are abnormally crowded together and denied access to other animals will you find nuclear related animals having sex.

It's not that cats or any animals are morally superior to humans; it's simply the fact that pheromones drive animal behavior, and animals, like humans, are designed to be biologically sexually repulsed by those who are closely related to them.In humans, it's more than just pheromones (although that certainly is a major part of it - if you are a female, male pheromones that smell like your father or brother are not sexually exciting; if you are a man, pheromones like your mother or sisters are equally gross). In humans, psychology informs a lot of our sexual behavior, and so we are designed to be sexually not attracted to people who take on roles like "father, brother, sister, mother" in our lives. Except, of course, if you are a fucking pervert. It happens sometimes. The human brain certainly can malfunction. See schizophrenia, manic depression, 2 girls 1 cup, et al.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Nature would have to be very pretty indeed if only humans could "Malfunction." But it isn't, and so I doubt your point.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

I you get rid of the females you will have equal success i suspect. Why are males who express themselves naturally always the culprit. And if a couple wants to be sexually active, have a vasectomy and tie her tubes. I see all the monsters saved in this society, to further degenerate our gene pool. And then they are allowed to reproduce their defects into the world. Thus setting natural selection back thousands of generations.

Rock on Prof!

+1
+1
-1
Todd posted on

Wow, pretty pathetic attempt at an argument. The reason it would be standard to get rid of the males in the litter and not the females, is, presumably, the pregnant cat was your to begin with, and one would not want to get rid of their original cat. That such a simple truth would pass so far above your head, makes the gibberish and drivel following in your reply more understandable.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Frustrated a bit eh, Todd. Why do you think it is called "pussy" anyway?

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Todd - very good, well said.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

You call incest prudishness? Really? Seriously? What about basic decency. There is decency involved here. Or, rather, the lack of it.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

With that nickname you want to talk about "basic decency"? You have to be kidding.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

You may be sick of "spics," but I'm sick of correcting white Americans' English. Questions end with question marks, you douche.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh please, this is informal writing where form and grammar take a hiatus.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Sex with animals is how we got many STD's such as syphilis. I suggest you speak to a theorpist since we have sexual issues and wants to have sex with other animals other than human. At least the other aminals stick to their own kind.

+1
-4
-1
Todd posted on

lol, that is not true... while a female animal would never willingly have sex with a human (ok, cats in heat might want to but it is impossible), the same cannot be said of the male animals. Just saying. But, yes. The majority of human STD's came from livestock animals (Sheep, cows, horses) from chlamydia to gonorrhea

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes. America is SUCH a prudish Nation...and getting more so all the time.
Prudishness is why boys are circumcised...so they won't masturbate, ha, ha.
Here is another one, shock, shock...sex with animals.
How does it hurt either the animal or the person ?...and it could provide a lot of pleasure for both.
The damn Right Wing wants to eliminate ALL sex except for procreation of humans...
and there are now way too many humans on the Earth to get along peaceably.

+1
+7
-1
Anonymous posted on

Nonsense that this is American prudishness. I just got married in Denmark, the first country in the world to legalize porn, and my application asked if I was a first cousin sibling etc.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Todd, pedophilia is rampant in the states and in all nations. regardless of their modern or "primitive" status. On the contrary, issues of sexual abuse are more apparent in western societies.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes, that's why the child sex trade is most prominent in Asian cultures. get a clue, libtard.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I don't think being liberal or conservative matters in this situation. I think most people agree that pedophilia is a bad thing. so drop the intellectual dishonesty and stop being an idiot. And Trouble is correct. pedophilia is common here in the States, too. Come on now.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

No one said it wasn't in the US also, but we do not have the same level of child sex slave trade & tourism as in Thailand. I'm so tired of people trying to make excuses. An acceptable answer would NOT be that it's ok to be a pedophile somewhere else, because the US has the same issue (even though I think someone planning a child slave sex vacation, they would probably head to Thailand 1st because it IS more rampant).

Has everyone forgotten common sense AND never learned how to debate.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes they did, right after they didn't learn to use proper puncuation,

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I believe the correct "spelling" would be punctuation...always so hard to impress people when you can't spell for crap.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Please shut up. All of you, just shut the fuck up. Go masturbate or something, obviously the issue here is making you all 'hot and bothered'.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Lets back up here... the topic isn't pedophilia, it's incest. Keep on track folks.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Good one Hakon! D.

+1
-3
-1
Todd posted on

I agree that pedophilia is neither a liberal or conservative issue, and am often amused with conservatives views that liberals are somehow for it. That said, there is a chasm of difference between between the open sexual abuse of children in a place like Thailand and the hidden, secretive sexual abuse of children in westernized countries. Namely, that it is not at all acceptable.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

 the majority of the customers are white american males or british.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

[[, issues of sexual abuse are more apparent in western societies.]]

Yes, because we view it as bad and want to bring the bad thing to light.
I've been to Thailand. Children are bought and sold like bowls of rice. "Breaking in" young girls is a cultural pasttime.

Being more apparent is the good thing. Hiding it in the shadows to grow and fester is abhorrent.

+1
-5
-1
Anonymous posted on

More apparent!!!! - you mean more woman are empowered to come out and lodge complaints against suexually deviant behavior in Western/liberal societies.. In Asian, Middle-eastern and other patriarchal cultures the woman's voice is suppressed to the extent that the depth and breadth of sexual abuse in those culture is more prevalent, but less apparent in the news media. It is widespread but just brushed under the proverbial carpet.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Hey Todd, I couldn't have said it better! (but thats probably because I'm high) haha. The way you wrote it is funny and it made me LOL, (again, maybe bc I'm high) but you also touched on a few good points. I also thought it was weird that he was from Thailand which is infamous for shall we say "loose morals" when it comes to the sex industry.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

He did not say he was from Thailand. He said he lives in Thailand. His name doesn t sound very Thai to me. prob American or British. Lot of expatriate perverts hanging out round there. worked over there in child protection. Most of the customers are Americans and Europeans They exploit poverty and create the whole cycle of supply and demand. .

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

It is always worth doing a quick search to find out. Apparently according to a recent Max Planck Institute study:
"No such criminal provision exists in approximately one-third of the legal systems studied. The systems without criminal incest provisions include France (in accordance with the Napoleonic Code of 1811) and the legal systems influenced by French law (the Netherlands, Turkey, and the modern law of the Ivory Coast), Russia, China, Spain, Israel, and the US states of Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Michigan"

The study is actually quite in interesting and rigorous read.

Reference:
http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/ww/e...
The quote comes from the first subsection of section I on http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/ww/e...
http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/ww/e...

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

oh, and apologies for any typos occurring while I dashed that out - for those of you who hate improper punctuation/grammar ;-)

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thanks for the excellent comment and link!

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thanks for your input Josh. The Right Wing Conservatives in the US don't want anyone to enjoy sex.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

You are "fairly certain"... well in fact you are completely WRONG.

Yes, and you are way out of line to suggest that everyone in Thailand is some kind of sex pervert because you say so.

"Extreme genetic damage"?? Haven't you ever heard of contraception or abortion? Or amniocentesis?

Or do you think that all those things are "immoral" as well?

Todd, you are an idiot moralist, getting all worked up over something that is absolutely NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Go back into the hole you crawled out of.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

For those who are shocked about incest, you might find it enlightening if you check out the risk factors for women who wait until they are in their late 30's to get pregnant.
The human female is designed to have children between approximately 15 and 28...anything beyond those
ages carries increased risks.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Wait, are you supposed to have kids everytime you have sex? In that case, yeah, there's the genetic danger, but otherwise, if the coitus is just for pleasure, I really can't see much of a problem here. That doesn't mean that I would have sex with my mother (it's quite gross, I think) but if two adults wants to do it, lets them go for it. And Todd, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Russia and other countries do not legally punish or prosecute consesual incest. Are they outside of the westernized "modern" societies?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

the age thing is the least of the problems here!!!!oh my goodness really thats what u have a problem with,forget that he's sexing his own flesh and blood daughter!!!geez that puts a whole new spin on the saying"she's a daddy's girl"huh?yuk!

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

All in the Family---Wasn't that a hit TV show?

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

You must be into that then Doc. Oh yes I see your in Thailand. Where that is ok. You probably like really young boys also.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ad hominem. And a pretty lame one at that.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Lgosman has no idea what "ad hominem" means, GR, but good call anyway.

Obviously, if someone defends an adult's right to have sex with another consenting adult (who happens to be closely related to them), then the person making that defense must be "into" that type of sex, too. And of course, the lawyer hired by Prof. Epstein must also be "into" incest. Etc., Etc.

Deep thinkers, these people. How many generations back in their own family trees do you think you'd have to go before you found probable incestuous relationships aplenty? Not very far, I'm guessing, if their level of intelligence is any indication.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

No Dr. Muller, it's not legal to have sex with your children at any age....what a weird comment. You were "unaware that it would be illegal for a father to have consensual sex with his daughter over 18 or 21 years old?"

Someone really needed to tell you that? Are you sure you're living in Thailand & not Yemen??

+1
+7
-1
Anonymous posted on

You missed the point, but obviously the point has taken second seat to everyone jumping on the 'bash the freak' bandwagon- as always, trolls and idiots, parasites and pieces of shit like you come in to save the day, to ensure the hive-mind has it's way. 'Merica, fuck yea! Grab me uh bud light and some french fries, I'm gonna tear this thread to pieces with mah shit-brain!'

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

It is not illegal in Thailand (or any Asian country). It is also not illegal in Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Hawaii.

+1
-6
-1
Todd posted on

It is illegal in all three, but only punishable by a civic fine.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Someone living in Thailand commenting on the sexual practices of the USA. Ahhh, Thailand the place where men from all over the world go to have sex with pre-pubescent girls and boys. Have fun in those brothels with those little girls and boys...do you make them call you Daddy!

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes, and you're in Thailand, where child prostitution is rampant and little girls and bought and sold for sex until they die of AIDS. People in glass houses...

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

PhD in Thiland? I believe you are a pervert.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Shout out to all of my peeps at DegreeInfo who are now opening this page in droves since someone linked here.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes, Dr. Muller, the US is not only a bastion of Christian Fundamentalist moralism but has been the chief instigator of criminalizing normal human sexual behavior not just in the US but around the world. We have a lot of work to do here straightening out our backward-ass country that is trying to turn 3/4ths of the world's people into "sex perverts" with a sweep of a pen.

These Christian anti-sex bigots aren't very deep thinkers, are they? Their own religious text has God "creating" Adam and Eve. Where did Adam and Eve's grandchildren come from, if not from incestual relationships?

Incest (like prostitution and sex with "children") has been around for EVER and it's not going to go away because some idiot passes a law against it. If there is a law against closely related adults having consensual sex, then that law should be repealed. Cops out of the bedrooms!

Lets support the right of human beings to engage in consensual sex with whomever they desire to, no matter their age, race, gender, or familial relationships. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is absolutely no one else's business.

+1
-2
-1
Don posted on

Says the paedophile living in Thailand, sex predators paradise.
A adult man having sex with his daughter is just reprehensible and disgusting.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Isn't that the truth. Sadly, America is rapidly becoming a police state.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Being from Thailand, perhaps you are used to overlooking when girls are taken advantage of sexually regardless of their age. When a person of power takes advantage of someone sexually it is not consensual, and you are decidedly overlooking that this girl was probably sexually abused by her father since childhood. Or maybe you just have a sexual relationship with your parent, thus clouding your opinion. Yes, here in the USA we look down upon a father, or any other person in an authority, taking advantage of someone sexually.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

amend to my first comment: if these allegations regarding the professor are even true, which I hope they are not. If they are, however, Mullerpaulm is very off base.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

You live in Thailand where it IS normal for this sort of "relationship" to occur? Are you off your head? Besides the ICK factor there is the genetics issue. Oh my God what's wrong with you? Don't bash the USA we're not perfect but there is NO place like it.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh yeah, you are some sick users of little children. Your whole country is basically going to hell. What a nut!

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, we don't suffer perverts "over here."

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I can see why you chose to live in Thailand where every form of sexual perversion takes place.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Glen, so sexual perversion does not exist where you live? Let's be smart here and not point the finger at Thailand that caters to mostly American, Canadian, and European perverts looking for a sexscape.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

@ Glen ...you hit the nail on the head ! 5 stars for that answer. US is where all the worst extreme things happen on a daily basis and here we have people complaining about Asian countries lol !

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

( correction)

@ Trouble...you hit the nail on the head ! 5 stars for that answer. US is where all the worst extreme things happen on a daily basis and here we have people complaining about Asian countries lol !

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ignorant moron, you can't even tell who you are replying to let alone make a rational argument about the rampant child sex trade prominent in Asian countries/cultures. Also, do you REALLY think this relationship started at 18? And do you REALLY think the scumbag manipulator David "rape my own daughter" Epstein didn't groom her for this her whole life by planting the seeds of sexual deviancy in her from a young age? I bet you're a lib-scum dummy who forked over 100k to get a history degree......

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why don't you just argue your argument instead of using stupid (and very presumptive) words like "lib-scum" and making an assertions about someone's education (which is almost certainly incorrect).

Take this advice: more people will be willing to listen and absorb your position if you calm down your emotions a bit and just state facts. I thought lib-scums and lib-tards were supposed to be the irrational ones . . .

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Also, do you REALLY think this relationship started at 18?"

--> Do you have evidence to the contrary? Using rhetorical questions which imply guilt aren't evidence of anything but your all-to-apparent bias."

And do you REALLY think the scumbag manipulator David "rape my own daughter" Epstein didn't groom her for this her whole life by planting the seeds of sexual deviancy in her from a young age?

--> You are doing nothing but fallaciously jumping to conclusions. You assume Epstein manipulated her, you also assume he raped her, and you also assume he "groomed her for deviancy" (implying that this is necessarily a bad thing if it even occurred at all). Then, you throw ad-hominem's at those who disagree with you.

YOU are the one who needs to make a rational argument; the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

And somehow you know this to be true Takow666? Take your moronic politics out of this and see it for what it is, a crime of moral standards, but little else that you know of at this time. Details may come out later saying otherwise, but from this story only how could you possibly infer anything else?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

lol.. look here, we have one who is regurgitating things they heard over a pseudo-intelligent conversation they overheard yesterday. 'lib-scum'...

the best part is the justification of your argument being the name typo. wow man, good one. good one.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why is the parent blamed for initiating sex ? Anyone who thinks that ALL children are sexless is not very
observant and anyone who thinks that girls don't become sexual until 18 is not very realistic.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

All the while you (Trouble) forget, or leave out the "fact", that it is the Thai people who live there and "cater" to the immorality of "anyone" who wishes to partake. Not simply "Western Europeans, and North Americans, as you would have others believe. Eastern Europe also has a lively "sex trade" going on. As does the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

Begs the question? What is it about Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa...that us "civilized" people are missing out on? Or is it that they are really different than we are?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

You once again, are missing the point. It is true that sex tourists consist of westerners about 95% of the time. Look it up. That includes sex within the US as well as outside of the US. Look that up too. The funny thing is, that you don't care about statistics, or facts, you just want to continue your argument, which you have been regurgitating redundantly now (for a while i might add)..

Also, to put another nail in your coffin, to shut you the fuck up, the United States is one of the many countries that 'hosts' sex tourism. This does not negate the fact that sex tourists in asia and eastern europe consist of westerners 95% of the time. Go back to your Utopian dream, Shit Town USA, where American Educated morons like yourself feel entitled to the soap box.

+1
0
-1
Todd posted on

"Go back to your Utopian dream, Shit Town USA, where American Educated morons like yourself feel entitled to the soap box"

We invented the idea of free speech, and are very adept at using it.
The American college system is by far the worlds best. Foreigners flock by the millions and pay billions a year for the chance at that education system. I have traveled the world extensively, and a poor person living in Shit town USA lives a better life than 85% of the rest of the world. A rich person in that same town has a life that is better than 98% of the world. Do you really think such petty insults have any effect on americans? Last I checked more people from every country on earth are trying to live in the US, than there are US citizens trying to move to the country they are fleeing. That is what I call a nail in the coffin.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"We invented the idea of free speech"

Except not.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why in all of this is it not mentioned if the daughter got arrested. If they are both of legal age and both violated the law why is it always the female that is the victim and the male the aggressor who is blamed for the act. I think women get too much of a free pass when they are equally culpable in crimes like this (which IMHO is not really worthy of being called criminal). The same goes with sex with 17 year old by 19 year olds, or even sex with a 15 year old by a 90 year old. Technically it is pedophilia or statutory rape or both, yet if it is consensual, who the hell cares. We would do well in this country to use our vast resources to tackle crime that hurts people such as the drug issues at the border, murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. A crime like this is a crime of third party offense. In other words a third party is offended but no actual harm (legally speaking) has occurred. If we model society by this norm then anything that a third party finds offensive can be considered a crime. If my neighbor wants to have consensual relationship with his daughter and his son in some freaky incest bi three way, more power too him. I don't want to see it and don't agree with that choice but it is not for me to force my morals on someone else. We as a society need to get our noses out of everyone else business and attend to our own.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

By its very nature, an incestuous relationship between a parent and child can never be consensual, regardless of the age of the parties. There is a differential power dynamic that makes the concept of consent impossible.

And this isn't a case of blaming the man. The parent is at fault, as the person with the power in a parent-child relationship. If an woman was engaged in a sexual relationship with her (adult) son, she would be the one arrested.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

The nature you define is ridiculous. We all come from most probably the same beast at some level. Why stop there, how about out lawing all sexual contact since there is a chance for problems. And who really is to decide what a problem is and what is not? Who really is to say a deformity is a defect, maybe its really nature evolving. So many rules so many people thinking for others. A differential power dynamic? Please, what kind of jibberish is that? We are all human beings, I don't understand the point of limiting a person from not having sex with their own blood. Its really laughable that anybody would have an inkling to say about another two adults having sex. The problem with society is that so many people wholeheartedly accept previous generation constructs of acceptability. Tradition is identity. How about learning to think for yourself instead of taking previous generations prescribed notions of what is correct and telling everybody how to think.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm just glad that nothing you said is true.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

THANK YOU. Me----you hit the nail on the head. Incest, more so between a parent and child is never consensual. I believe the parent, as the one who is one with power/authority, grooms the child from a young age and controls the relationship.

Incest survivors/victims will NEVER believe the consensual BS. It is VERY offensive to them. I respect that.

I could see a brother-sister or cousin-cousin relationship of adults being more consensual because there is less of a power-play and age difference. I still think it is yuck, but would believe that it is consensual MORE than a parent-child relationship. Therefore, I am going to oppose only parent-child adult incest completely.

I gaurantee you that this professor was either:

a. Molesting/raping his daughter from an early age, and it got out and she said it was consensual out of fear

b. He was grooming her through her adolescence and sneakily said all the right things and "seduced" her into a relationship.

Once again, I blame the Professor because he is the PARENT (not a man).

You can't just all the sudden get the hots for or fall in love with your parent or child. You've already established a "normal" parent-child relationship since childhood----or have you? I find it VERY hard to believe they "suddenly" had a 3-year affair. Don't buy it. How do you up and decide to have sex with your parent/child for 3 years? Makes no sense. Once again, I feel the parent is at fault because of the power-play.

If anyone wants to say, oh she seduced her own father, good luck with that.

On the homosexuality issue:

Homosexuality affects the individual--OUTSIDE of the family. Incest is IN the immediate family--especially parent-child. So it disrupts family dynamics. A parent is there not as a lover, but as a father or mother. Families provide a different type of love--for a reason. Families provide emotional/survival growth, and romantic relationships or sex can involve emotional growth too, but it is moreso for population growth. (Yes I believe sex is a wonderful, pleasurable act, and is not dirty, and not just for making kids, lol).

I won't get into law, but if we start being "okay" with incest between 2 adults, then incest between an adult and child will be the next to be defended. NOT GOOD.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why did the police say that it was a consensual relationship?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, that's why we dont have a bunch of German tourists coming a child molestation resort like your country

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Your Phd is obviously in perverted behavior. Your education was utterly wasted. You are a pathetic Botch of a completely messed up set of parents.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Paul Muller your a PHD in what?

Your dumb as a box of rocks! Having sex with your own daughter is sick.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Sex between family members is not acceptable. Blood line should not be mixed, it might gives birth to a deformed baby. Sad indeed.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

If that were such a legitimate concern, stupid people would be sterilized.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh, so it's just prudishness? Are you crazy? Incest is the most disgusting thing ever--it is morally repulsive, and anyone who says otherwise is sick in the head.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

David Epstein got his PhD in 1992, which means he could not have met his wife as a postdoctoral student in the 1980s. Just a correction.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

it takes a few years to get a PhD guy

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes, but he could not be a POSTDOC until he had his PhD.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

uhhh yeah, but he could be a post doc student

+1
-5
-1
Anonymous posted on

"post doc" means "post-doctoral", as in, after you get the doctorate.

So no, he couldn't be.

+1
-3
-1
Top Scientist posted on

Poopski, you've pretty obviously never been to college. POST means "after." Post-docs are researchers or students who have ALREADY RECEIVED their doctoral degree.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

it is possible that he has more than one doctoral degree...probably not likely, but possible.

+1
+2
-1
Top Scientist posted on

You're right. Probably it was supposed to say postgraduate.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Okay, he knocks up his one-night stand back when he's 22, 20 years later, his daughter finds him, and things get freaky....
Sounds like this guy: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/...

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

OMG I read your article and others about this David Bruce McMahan (aka Bruce McMahan aka David McMahan). Sick Sick Sick.....but his daughter IS gorgeous in the deposition video on youtube (Linda) and they are rich....BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE.

"Look, I'm king of the world" ............................................................................................not

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

This billionairhead now builds the super-car Maxximus G-Force...can you believe this tag line I found...."KTLA 5 featured the Maxximus G-Force on a segment on what to get Dad for Father's Day"
How about getting him a restraining order.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

No worries. He married her and made an honest woman of her. ;p

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

since Napoleon incest isn't punishable anymore in some european coiuntries (France, Belgium, Holland and some others) on condition that it should be consensual and it happens between grown-ups. i guess th

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do?

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Just my thought. As creepy as it may be, it looks like it's their family business. On the other hand, it’s no wonder "he is no longer listed as married." My question is: Why does all this have to become public?

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

The question is to what extent "consensual" incest is really consensual. Sure, they're both adults, but a parent-child relationship provides a lot more opportunity for different and really fucked up kinds of psychological coercion that are not possible in a relationship between two adults who are not related.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

maybe its all a part of his game theory.

+1
-1
-1
Mark C posted on

David-- TRUE!!

All men play whatever games necessary to get as many women as possible (Freud's pleasure principle).
Looks like this guy included his own offspring as one of the possible.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Let us not forget Woody Allen-these people have no morals.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

You don't think that there are millions of couples worldwide where the man has the psychological power ?
That is the universal norm, especially with social conservatives.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

It is illegal because procreation in such cases leads to medical situation that weigh on society.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

So if he was banging his son, it would be cool eh?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

oh schnaps

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

By that logic, people with known medical defects (like dwarfism or hemophilia) shouldn't be allowed to legally have sex.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

so if they use birth control than will you shut up and realize that its none of your business?!

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Good one, mar!

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

What he is being charged with is a crime that was revealed recently (after she reached adulthood). That doesn't exclude the fact that the abuse could have started when she was a child and paved the way for this current relationship. Do you really think that all of a sudden he just got caught up in a "moment of insanity" and started a sexual relationship with his own daughter the moment she turned 21 (the affair is said to have gone on for at least 3yrs). Ironic his wife was involved in addressing sexual misconduct in ROTC programs....

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Sources, Guest? Or is your comment nothing but hearsay?

Plus, if she's 24 now and "the affair is said to have gone on for at least 3 years", she was 21 when it started. Still has a 3 year window of legality beyond that.

At any rate, no matter when or how it started, It's still no one else's business.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Incest is illegal period up until 2nd or 3rd cousins. Even if it was consensual, what he was doing was still illegal.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

That is not true. It's state law and varies, but generally even 1st cousins can marry.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Consanguinity laws, for one reason.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Seems like that can't be enough, though, since the daughter was not charged.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Cause if they reproduced the kids would be fucked up.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Is that what happened to you?

What information do you have that indicates children are involved in THIS case? You're just making that up. And if these two people wanted to have children that would be their decision to make as well. It's none of our (or the cops, or the courts') business.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Does that mean your Dad paying your tuition?

+1
-1
-1
mary posted on

And you wish to take the word of this man? Just like a rapist who infers his victim was "asking for it"? How do you know this didn't start happening when she was much younger? Incest is against the law, because it is wrong, it's victimization. Perhaps having grown up in a civilized society that had ended all these wrongs, you've been protected from having to be victimized and abused, but that doesn't give you the right to treat such things cavalierly. Those who commit incest, pedophilia, rape and other such abuses, groom their victims it's all about power, this isn't some relationship. It destroys the victim's life.

Tell us do, what else are you ok with? How craven and weak minded are you? I notice you're too cowardly to identify yourself.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're just making stuff up and passing it along as the truth. I'm not even sure your questions need to answered. You're not even aware of the facts.

+1
0
-1
mary posted on

Really.. or is it perhaps because in your "culturally enriched" beliefs, molesting your daughters, or sons is fine and dandy? In the United States, we don't allow freaks to molest children, exploit or rape children or anyone. If you can't wrap your tiny mind around that, I suggest you hop a jet back to the old country.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're all wrong if you think the USA doesn't rape and molest its children. We are certainly not exempt from these heinous deeds. And we often allow and even find entertainment in rape and sexual abuse. Get off your xenophobic nationalistic high horse.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Where do Americans find entertainment in rape, you libscum dummy?

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

television and the movies and novels.or that's where i have found these themes .people who enjoy such things as crimes shows and medical dramas and suspense books.and do not forget the advertising theme of making older models look younger with their very thin underdeveloped bodies and poofy lips that only small children sport naturally.. am i getting ahead of you here?or can you think of other examples?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're WAY ahead of him, and the others too. How about the new "hairless male" fashion statement so popular in the US? That used to be strictly a gay thing. Now all adult men are supposed to be as hairless as the women so we can all look like... pre-pubescent teens? Kinky!

Just the type of phenomenon you would expect to occur in a society where sex with "children" is totally outlawed.

+1
-2
-1
grampadave posted on

The US is one of the most puritanical nations on earth. While in most developed countries violence is considered obscene and sexual matters healthy, Americans have that completely opposite.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Mary M. (Magdalene?) You should take a look at the history of the age of consent laws in the US.

It is only very, very recently that the US government "discovered" that "children" should not be allowed to have sex.

50 years ago, there were US states that allowed children as young as 8 to get married.

Apparently, our "founding fathers" and every American generation up until around 1980 were a bunch of filthy perverts. Are we "smarter" now, Mary or just way too worried about what other people do, consensually, among themselves?

Check out this article comparing the various "age of consent" laws in North America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I think in a case where it's siblings or cousins around the same age with the same mental capacity and fairly equal relationship, incest isn't necessarily messed up. Our morals shouldn't impede upon others' liberties. If it's consensual, there shouldn't be laws against it.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

That being said, this relationship is different. "Consent" is different if it's between a daughter and her father. It shouldn't really be happening.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Your right. If i want to kill your family because I think it's morally justified, you should jsut be quiet and let me murder them without repercussions. It's moral relativity, after all.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm sorry, who suggested it was ok to kill people?

Is it possible you don't have a direct argument about the topic at hand? Then, someone suggested that family business is family business and you said "A ha! I can use the 'slippery slope' argument!" and made your post?

Slippery slope is a bullshit debate device. That is, unless you are willing to have new laws on the books to outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, high fructose corn syrup, etc. . . .

Incest is not murder. Cigarettes are not crack cocaine. That is why we have different types of laws for the different situations. Can you see the difference?

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Give it a break! You are acting as if sex between a father and his daughter is uncommon or something. Sex between family members happens all the time. What is uncommon is that people do not openly speak about it.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Haha, well trolled Mary M.

The name was a subtle touch

+1
-2
-1
grampadave posted on

Read the story again. "According to police, the relationship appears to have been consensual."

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I don't see why boinking your dog is a crime either but it is. When did old David start grooming her to be his sweety? How young was she? He probably did not have time for the bar scene being such a busy guy.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

What he is being charged with is a crime that was revealed recently (after she reached adulthood). That doesn't exclude the fact that the abuse could have started when she was a child and paved the way for this current relationship. Do you really think that all of a sudden he just got caught up in a "moment of insanity" and started a sexual relationship with his own daughter the moment she turned 21 (the affair is said to have gone on for at least 3yrs). Ironic his wife was involved in addressing sexual misconduct in ROTC programs....

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

How could you even ask that question. Incest is a crime, Incest is something that should never happen. Anyone that hints that there is nothing wrong with incest is a sick f--k!!!!!

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

you are a fucktard Takow666. retard!

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Are you really liberal enough ( read: stupid enough) that these two just all of a sudden when she reached the age of consent said, "Oh, hey, we're consenting adults let's start banging"? He obviously poisoned her mind for a long time with his liberal filth, just getting that familiar blossom ready for pollination. Sickening liberal scumbag.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

You sound like revelation 2:23 "I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.". Above me how one could hope to be recognized as one "to repay each according to deed" while killing innocents to punish their mother.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh sweet are we misquoting scriptures out of context?

The reference is a church and the "children" would be the church members whom are having sex with temple prostitutes.

As seen in 2:20b, "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. Be her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and eating of food sacrificed to idols."

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Be" should be "By" typo.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Facebook as a source? Why does it matter if he's married, anyway—he's being charged with incest, not adultery.

+1
+5
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yet, it was adultery too. I think the idea of this information is to show how did his wife take it...very predictable, indeed! Sorry, I don't know why we're even discussing this when the finals are here!

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I hate the public element of this... and this scenario stinks of someone letting go a B-O-M-B in the midst of the whole O.I.L.-slick scenario (Operation Ivy League. I think the biggest misstep in the coverage of this incident was the Spectator publishing that it was his 24 yr. old daughter, which leads her to be very traceable. Not cool. Shame on the you Spectator/BWOG.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Commie liberal"? Are you posting from the year 1958?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, let's keep perverted sexual activity quiet, especially if the participants are progressive. Mr. Epstein certainly never left Palins daughter out of his focus. Double standard much?

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

This guy should be fucking hanged. Incest is disgusting, and I suppose this type of depravity should not be a surprise. He blogs for the Huffing-Paint Post and he is a commie liberal. ANy type of behavior is ok if you are a liberal.

What a twat

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

If you think all liberals condone this behavior...you're the bigger twat of all!

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I see a lot of posts here defending it. I would make a bet they are of the liberal persuasion.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

There are sickos on both sides. But at least liberals air their dirty laundry openly and make no apologies for it, so you can pick out the sickos, whereas conservatives preach the opposite of what they're practicing. In this way, you can detect the sickos on the conservative side too. They always do the opposite of what they say.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Lots of apologies in this comment section for Mr Epstein from lib-scum dummies.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Last time I checked, it is conservatives who preach that the government should stay out of individuals' personal lives. If these are two consenting adults, then -- regardless of how offensive you find it -- why should the state be involved? That should be the position of a conservative. But conservatives only really believe this when the issue is about taxes or gun control. When it is about abortion or homosexuality or any number of other social issues, then conservatives think government interference is a-ok.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Great post, libtard. The right-wing blowhards want the government to let the polluters pollute, the corporations exploit and the capitalist system to operate totally unfettered, crushing everything and everyone in their way. No government intervention at all. That is what they mean when they say: "Get the government off the people's backs!" ("The people's backs" means "the corporations' backs", in this phase of their argument.)

BUT, when it comes to the personal choices people make in their private lives, choices about whether or not to have children, or whom to have sex with, or what kinds of recreational drugs to use, then it's SHOVE BIG GOVERNMENT ALL THE WAY UP THE PEOPLES' ASS!

They are not contradicting themselves; they are being entirely consistent. The right-wingers love the capitalist system and they (like the big bourgeoisie who actually run the capitalist system) hate independence of thought or behavior by the members of the working class.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yeah, the Huffington Post is so in his corner. That's how I found this story. While we're leveling sterotypes, why not get back to jerkin it to Glen Beck.

+1
0
-1
Mojo Jojo posted on

I think they should hang this woman, what kind of pervert seduces her own father.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I think stoning is the more traditional punishment.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

like

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Are you an IDIOT? I hope you are saying that just to be controversial. Victims of sexual abuse do NOT seduce the perpetrators, wtf??

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Men can be victims of younger females just like the reverse.
Unless of course you do not believe women have the where with all to decide upon things themselves.
So let's assume they are using birth control, exactly what is wrong with the two of them having sexual intercourse.?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ease up, already! Sometimes little angels like big daddy. Men are helpless in these situations. Women know this intuitively. That's why women rule.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

It's also okay in most Bible stories as well.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Gup, you've obviously never read the Bible. The man gets killed, not the woman, for incest.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Are you kidding?? Ever read about Lot and his daughters??

Oh, yeah, they took it upon themselves to dutifully continue the family line by getting dad drunk....

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Peace,

The Biblical account of Lot and his daughters is completely inaccurate. Lot was a Prophet of God and never committed those actions. Please do some basic studying of the Bible to see how many human changes were inserted into the book later on. Today with so many varying versions, we can never be sure which of it remains the word of God. God revealed a final book to humanity which is still preserved in its original form. Go check it out. (www.freequran.com)

A lot of the discussion going on here assumes the relativity of it all....the idea that incest could be a relative matter however perplexes even the most complex human mind. When we try and rationalize it as a personal decision in a secular society, okay, sure, but does that make it right? The answer is, as humans, we will never be able to fully tell right from wrong when society's standards keep going down the drain, more and more. Rather we need a more stable sense of morality that is grounded in universal ethics and principles. This comes from God, from revelation. I encourage everyone to study more, read more and question the relativistic, nihilistic worldviews being propagated nowadays.

Peace.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

In most states, the south, this is normal........whats the big deal? Both of consenting age!

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why would you ever post such an ignorant and ridiculous comment? This is a serious matter and jokes like that are unfounded and unnecessary.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

he was making a (bad) joke, you dope. simmer down now.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Bad joke? I'd say "despicable".although I might be accused of being old and unhip.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Only if you say "dethpicabble!" like Daffy Duck.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

It's sure as shit illegal in Mississippi as well as seducing women through lying, teaching people what polygamy is, having two illegitimate children, adultery or fortification, unnatural intercourse, and vagrancy. We're fucked up.

“To understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi”

William Faulkner

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Even if nobody cares about his own daughter, he should be the last person who has to take care of. But the way he did was just bad. Why do you guys think he got divorced? The mother, Professor Sharyn O’Halloran was scared that he might rape her & his own children. Is it related to 'be liberal'? Is that why Spectator publishing her daughter's age? Shame on you all.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

thank you for clarifying that blah: i grew up a commie liberal, and my family routinely had incestuous relations. doesn't everyone (you twat).

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

How do you liberals choose what to condone? What are the guidelines? Being of age? Consent? Someone is lacking a consistent standard.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

I can assure you that you don't want to start a political debate here because I am sure that more conservatives in the south engage in incest than all the liberals combined in Canada, U.S, UK combined.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh please. Redneck does not imply conservative. However liberal implies lack of moral fortitude.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on


Eric,

The marrying of cousins or 2nd cousins is far more common among Mormons, the Amish, and Southern rednecks. This is well documented but you don't care to research this. Last I checked the majority of these individuals vote GOP. In addition, most rednecks are indeed conservative. I've never met a confederate flag toting southern democrat.

Liberal implies lack of moral fortitude??? Hahaha....George Bush sent us into two nation building wars and killed 4,400 U.S. soldiers and spent a trillion dollars. Clinton had sex with his employee. Big difference.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Hahaha" you don't seem to "get" the fact that the Congress decides what to fund in the military. Bush didn't send anyone into war--Congress paid for that. Sooooooo delusional .....

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yet another misinformed FOX NEWS moron.

Bush made the decision to go to war with the help of Dick Cheney, George Tenet. The final decision was made by W. If you are unaware of this, you need to go back to school and get your GED.

+1
+1
-1
N. Mara Czarnecki posted on

Bush could not have made the decision without Congress approving or voting down the decision. You're the one who needs to get your GED and even look the Constitution once in a while. Executive Orders and anything else that the President has in his power do not supercede or allow superceding of the Constitution. Also, FOX News is the only real "fair and balanced" network (a Hillary Clinton Democrat, Rupert Murdoch, founded FOX News), but that is not the point.

The point is that David Epstein slept with his daughter and (as a Jew) quite frankly broke Torah and halakah (not "rabbi"nical halakah) relating thereto.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Actually, Congress hasn't actually voted on whether to go to war or not for decades. It's controlled the purse strings for Iraq and Afghanistan, true, but those decisions were still made in the White House.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Actually, Rupert Murdoch is Australian, and Fox is also owned by a Saudi. So, you're saying that the one channel that consistently spews racist innuendo and lies and is completely foreign-owned is somehow sole heir to the truth?
Remember that when the fairness doctrine was removed (during Reagan's reign), lying was no longer verboten on the air, so hate radio sprouted up and then became hate TV as Fox News. Calling Fox News "fair and balanced" is like calling those nasty cardboard apples "red delicious": it gets poorly informed people and those with poor memories to buy it.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Consanguineous marriage is most common in the Muslim religion. In GB, where Muslims are less than 3% percent of the population, they account for 52% of birth defects. Go brush your tooth.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Marrying does not = fucking.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Consanguineous marriage,(fathers marring their brothers daughters ) is very common in the Middle East. In Great Britain, over 56% of all birth defects occur in among middle easterners. They are only 3% of the population.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

What a complete fabrication, marrying any blood relation is Haraam (Prohibited) in Islam except cousins. Marrying Nieces absolutely not allowed! Don't know if other faiths/cultures are this specific.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Well said Eric

+1
-5
-1
PNUT1 posted on

You're a dummy.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Does that mean Epstein is an inbreeding hillbilly?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Shall we talk about the destruction of Sodom, and Lot's daughters getting him drunk and having their way with him after their mother was turned to a pillar of salt?

How about Adam and Eve? They only had two sons. So following logic, one must assume one son (probably Cain) fooled around with Eve. Otherwise, how are we all here.

Just Sayin.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

That is only true if you are naive enough to believe in creationism. Science has proven the theory of evolution. Adam and Eve is a cute story about naked people walking around in a garden, but nothing more.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

if you knew anything about science, you would know that nothing is ever "proven". it is a theory, just like creationism. no one was there, and no one knows for sure. furthermore, most accepted scientific theories dealing with energy and matter (thermonuclear dynamics, theory of relativity, newton's laws, laws of physics, etc) tend to support creation and intelligent design. so looks like it's YOU who's naive. and not too bright might i add. go study up.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on


Redlight, its proven that tobacco causes lung cancer.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

"most accepted scientific theories dealing with energy and matter (thermonuclear dynamics, theory of relativity, newton's laws, laws of physics, etc) tend to support creation and intelligent design."

...Do you have a link supporting this?

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I suspect you don't know much about science yourself. It's certainly clear that you don't understand the definitions of fact vs. law vs. hypothesis vs. theory, as they are used in science. I'm going to help you out with that:

FACTS are observable. If you have two apples and your friend has three apples, and you pool them, together you have five apples. Your joint possession of five apples constitutes an observable fact. However, facts on their own are not sufficient to demonstrate cause or effect. We don't know why you and your friend decided to pool your apples, or where the apples came from, or how you and your friend met in the first place - we just know that now you have five apples between you. As another example, if you throw your term paper out the window and see it fall, that constitutes an observable fact - but the act of throwing the paper out the window is not the only cause of the fall; the Earth's gravitational force also contributes (among other demonstrable factors).

LAWS are handy ways to describe the way something consistently behaves in the natural world. A law, like a fact, does not answer ultimate "how" or "why" questions; a law is demonstrable, but only states what happens. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which says that "every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them," provides a mathematical framework for showing that, if you continue to throw things out of windows here on Earth, those things will fall, and moreover will fall in a specific way owing to the larger mass of the Earth compared to the smaller mass of the things. Laws can be used predictively in this way, but again, they do not demonstrate ultimate cause in and of themselves - they essentially describe effect. To be clear, "gravity" is the name we give the behavior; the law still does not explain *why* particles are attracted to each other.

HYPOTHESES are really the first steps toward identifying some of the whys and hows related to a given fact. A hypothesis is an idea, rooted in the observation of the fact, which gives a scientist a starting point for determining causality (among other things). For a hypothesis to be considered sound, it must be testable and cogent. With you and your friend's apples, sound hypotheses that could be tested would include: the two of you decided to make a pie; the two of you are holding a taste-test; etc. These can be tested by asking you, and by continuing to observe your behavior. If we asked why you pooled your apples and you replied, "To have a taste-test," but then began rolling out pie crust and pre-heating the oven, we'd know we'd need to re-examine both our hypotheses and our methods, and begin to cross-check our different kinds of observations. A hypothesis is really a formal sort of question that lets us approach solving a problem - this is what people in casual speech mean when they say they have a "theory," but it's not what a scientific theory is at all.

A scientific THEORY is a provable concept that has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Theories tend to be composed of multiple facts, hypotheses and laws. A simpler way to describe a scientific theory is that it is soundly established through observable evidence, and no evidence (composed of facts, natural laws, etc.) has yet been found to disprove the theory. Both aspects, both the evidence in favor and the lack of evidence against, must be present for a theory to be considered sound. Theories are tested rigorously before they are accepted into the scientific community; scientists test theories not just by proving certain things do happen in particular ways, but also by attempting many times to disprove them.

A theoretical concept that would not hold up, with regard to your apples, might be this: "When people pool their apples, they are preparing to make a pie." That potential theory would fall apart; it would be easy to find facts that would falsify it. Even if 99 pairs of people in every hundred only ever pooled apples when they wanted to make a pie, but one pair of people in each hundred pooled apples when they wanted to have a taste-test, the concept would never be admitted as a theory. Although most people only pool apples to make pies, in this scenario, there is hard evidence that pies are not the *only* reason to pool apples.

+1
-4
-1
Anonymous posted on

(continuing)

The Theory of Evolution, to date, has withstood all attempts to disprove it, and remains sound despite faith-based arguments on behalf of a supernatural creator. It's worth noting that the scientific method does not allow theories to be admitted and established based on faith; while an individual scientist like Einstein might have faith in a creator, his faith is not admissible in the Theory of Relativity. On the other hand, the collection of evidence presented in the theory of relativity might bolster Einstein's individual faith. Even so, that does not mean the theory itself supports creation or intelligent design, it simply means that the orderliness of the universe he perceives in the theory makes Einstein wonder about the presence of an intelligent creator, and perhaps affirms his faith. It does not constitute proven evidence in favor of a creator.

To truly establish a theory that points to an intelligent creator, without resorting to faith-based arguments, has yet to be achieved. It would be something entirely different from the current "Intelligent Design" so-called "theory" (which I am picking on among an array of pseudo-scientific efforts in favor of a divine creator, because it's been so prominent in public debate in recent years). My sarcastic quotation marks aren't meant to insult anyone's faith (I am a person of faith myself), but rather indicate that the use of "theory" is a misnomer. By scientific definition, Intelligent Design relies too heavily on unprovable evidence, and indeed relies frequently on evidence that is easily disproven, to be admitted as a sound scientific theory.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

(continuing)

From the intelligentdesign dot org website:

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

"Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."

These "scientists" may perform all the experiments they please, but since they have failed to establish a sound hypothesis, they're not going to get closer to scientific proof. The above two quoted statements can be accurately paraphrased as, "We think really complex stuff is deliberately made to function in a specific way by someone really smart, because gosh! It's so darn complex! What else could it be? And, because we find really complex stuff in this organism and it stops working if we disable it, it must have been built deliberately by someone really smart." They might as well say, "We think the Earth is flat, and because the Earth looks flat to us, the Earth must be flat." They haven't measured the Earth, or taken the necessary steps to ensure that the "flat Earth" premise cannot be disproven, before they proceed to the conclusion that the Earth must be flat.

As you can see, in its current form, Intelligent Design is at best a mere movement toward establishing some theory about how evolution and faith in a supernatural creative power can be reconciled, rather than an actual, solid theory.

If you can be bothered to "study up" by having read the above (which I admit is really long for a comment, but at the same time is much, much shorter than a textbook on scientific theory, so please consider its comparative brevity, scroll back up, and read all of it! If you ever have to take a serious science class, you'll thank yourself) you will have learned something from all this. I hope you never say that the Theory of Relativity or the laws of physics are "just a theory" ever again (and that you will not talk about them as though they are in the same class, either).

Remember, theory, in science, is PROVABLE, at every single small step; and at every small step, a sound scientific theory will have examined all conceivable counter-arguments to ensure that it also cannot be disproven.

This is not a sound hypothesis, and is one of many points where Intelligent Design fails to meet scientific standards. In order to move forward scientifically, with a factual observation on which to base a hypothesis, proponents of Intelligent Design would need to establish, through evidence, that conscious design is the ONLY thing that leads to high levels of "CSI." Observing a thing happening, as we saw with the apples earlier, is not sufficient to establish that it is the only reason why something might happen.

Additionally, they would need to clearly define "CSI" within specific parameters. Where the statement above says "hypothesize," they are again skipping a step - the hypothesis must be demonstrably true in order to be considered a sound part of an overall theory. They're not actually hypothesizing by scientific definitions, but are simply making unproven assumptions.

The site goes on:

"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

(continuing - fixing the order in the above post. Why can't I edit in Disqus??)

From the intelligentdesign dot org website:

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

"Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."

This is not a sound hypothesis, and is one of many points where Intelligent Design fails to meet scientific standards. In order to move forward scientifically, with a factual observation on which to base a hypothesis, proponents of Intelligent Design would need to establish, through evidence, that conscious design is the ONLY thing that leads to high levels of "CSI." Observing a thing happening, as we saw with the apples earlier, is not sufficient to establish that it is the only reason why something might happen.

Additionally, they would need to clearly define "CSI" within specific parameters. Where the statement above says "hypothesize," they are again skipping a step - the hypothesis must be demonstrably true in order to be considered a sound part of an overall theory. They're not actually hypothesizing by scientific definitions, but are simply making unproven assumptions.

The site goes on:

"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

These "scientists" may perform all the experiments they please, but since they have failed to establish a sound hypothesis, they're not going to get closer to scientific proof. The above two quoted statements can be accurately paraphrased as, "We think really complex stuff is deliberately made to function in a specific way by someone really smart, because gosh! It's so darn complex! What else could it be? And, because we find really complex stuff in this organism and it stops working if we disable it, it must have been built deliberately by someone really smart." They might as well say, "We think the Earth is flat, and because the Earth looks flat to us, the Earth must be flat." They haven't measured the Earth, or taken the necessary steps to ensure that the "flat Earth" premise cannot be disproven, before they proceed to the conclusion that the Earth must be flat.

As you can see, in its current form, Intelligent Design is at best a mere movement toward establishing some theory about how evolution and faith in a supernatural creative power can be reconciled, rather than an actual, solid theory.

If you can be bothered to "study up" by having read the above (which I admit is really long for a comment, but at the same time is much, much shorter than a textbook on scientific theory, so please consider its comparative brevity, scroll back up, and read all of it! If you ever have to take a serious science class, you'll thank yourself) you will have learned something from all this. I hope you never say that the Theory of Relativity or the laws of physics are "just a theory" ever again (and that you will not talk about them as though they are in the same class, either).

Remember, theory, in science, is PROVABLE, at every single small step; and at every small step, a sound scientific theory will have examined all conceivable counter-arguments to ensure that it also cannot be disproven.

+1
-1
-1
BobMD posted on

Wow, are you bipolar?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Haha, no. I'm just a researcher who apparently needed to get on a soap box about something that annoys the daylights out of me.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

You gave an amazing response, and I wanted you to know that at least one person (me) read and appreciated your soap box rant.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thank you :)

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Would you agree with Science tells us how but it doesn't tell us why? (A person who doesn't believe science, reason, and faith must clash)

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

That's a poor excuse for an argument. Science doesn't claim to be infallible; as I said above, science makes every effort to prove a theory wrong before it can be accepted as a theory. However, when a theory that was previously accepted gets proven wrong (usually due to innovations in technology and methods of observation), it is discarded. So, a long time ago, the scientists who thought they had demonstrated the Earth was flat were proven wrong, and that theory was thrown out by the scientific community.

This is a bit tricky, conceptually, but hang in there: Science is a method of examining the world that allows room for both proof and disproof. The science we have today, being rooted now in centuries of experience and experiment, is far sounder than the science of 300 years ago; science becomes consistently more accurate over time, precisely because it demands both proof and disproof.

That the work of science is never quite complete, that we continue to allow theories to be attacked and to stand or fall based on the evidence, is probably what puts it so much at odds with faith, and leads people to think that science is untrustworthy. Science is by nature unsettled; although we accept certain theories at one time, based on the evidence, if the evidence is later shown to be inadequate we must re-examine a theory. This, though, is precisely why we can trust science - sound science will not lie to us, but it will tell us everything that we can currently prove about a given set of natural interactions.

It's safe to operate based on theories, such as the Theory of Gravity, that have withstood the test of time, but simultaneously it's possible (if unlikely) that we may yet encounter some piece of evidence that will mean modifying the theory. Again, this is not to argue that science is somehow vague or nebulous or unworthy of trust; a really relevant example of applied science involves the computer I'm using to type this comment, as well as the computer you're using to read it. The basis of a sound collection of theory allowed someone to develop practices that enabled them to build these computers, and allowed many others to develop the languages that translate my keystrokes into something that you can read. That's one of the amazing things about sound theory: it allows us to develop practices that can be applied in our everyday lives.

Faith, on the other hand, is constant. Faith does not allow wiggle room; it defines a premise and demands belief in that premise, without proof or evidence. Faith relies only on itself - although we are human and fallible, and so we may have experiences in our individual lives that either bolster or shake our faith.

On the surface, faith and science are diametrically opposed - but there is room for both. Faith is an important part of our agency as human beings - faith can enable us to do as many great things as science can. Faith can inform our choices; faith in a Jesus or a Buddha can help us to be kinder, to improve the lives of people around us. Science can also be used to improve our everyday lives, in this case by enabling a bunch of people who've never met to have an interesting conversation.

Faith and science can also both be used to inflict damage, even deliberate damage. Faith that tells believers to murder non-believers is damaging to the world. Science that is applied to enable murder is also damaging.

But neither science nor faith is ultimately responsible - we, as individuals who have choices, must shoulder the blame. We can choose to act, or not to act. It's a mistake to blame science for the pollution of the Earth, just as it's a mistake to blame faith for religious terrorism. We must hold people accountable, instead - the people who choose to interpret faith negatively, or choose to use scientific applications without thought for the consequences.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

So, to get back (finally, right?) to what the news story is about, it's a mistake to blame Epstein's political affiliations for his actions with his daughter, or to extrapolate from his actions that all liberals are the same - just as it would be a mistake to blame the entire set of Christians for the hateful actions of one group, such as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Epstein did something illegal (whether or not any of us agrees with the law), and he is the one responsible for his own actions, not the University or his political affiliations. Heck, G.W. Bush went to Yale - should we blame Yale for the War on Terror?

We need to hold each other responsible for our actions, instead of pointing fingers at each other's history or beliefs.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I don't think science and faith are necessarily mutually exclusive, no. Your question is little reductive; science can shed light on some of the "why" questions, as it can demonstrate causal relationships - in the example I gave about gravity, we know things appear to fall on Earth because there is this force we've labeled "gravity," but we still don't know why "gravity" exists - so there is some overlap between "how" and "why."

The ultimate "why" questions have not (yet, possibly, since science continues to build on prior theories) been answered by science - "Why is there life?" "Why do we exist?" That remains a matter of faith.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Me too! Good, deep thinking. Were you exhausted after that? If not, then you better be on the way to or already have your PhD else you are wasting some real brain power!

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Thank you very much for your very lucid and learned post. I wouldn't expect many replies from the faithful...

+1
+1
-1
PNUT1 posted on

Easily the stupidest thing I've ever read. A scientific theory is nothing like creationism. In science a theory is proven, prior to that it's a hypothesis. Creationism and ID are nothing more than made up b.s. by you wishful thinking spirit in the sky believing superstitious morons. That you think that science backs up that nonsense just goes to show how deluded and sick you are. You've been infected by the God Virus....

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Last time I checked humans were the virus killing the Earth and that was after they supposedly entered the Age of Reason. Sure you can praise your god of Reason, but how will condemning all others solve anything. Extremists of all stripes are the same.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

If you knew anything about the bible ( and I am not religious but curious enough to look into things) you would know that there is mention of women other than Eve in the creation story i.e. Lilith ( a great figure in the women's rights movement) and Cain's wife. I believe this is correct, I am doing this from memory and have no desire to research it again. I would encourage you to do so, however.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Lilith's not mentioned in the Bible, but is a figure from Jewish writings.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ya, this fallacy was promoted by the History Channel. It is very non-biblical. It pulls from Talmud, a Jewish book written by Rabbis. The part on Lilith was written 470 years after the death of Jesus (500 CE). Therefore it was written several thousand years after the Pentateuch by Rabbis from oral history. Look up "Talmud" on wikipedia for a quick read on it.

+1
+2
-1
N. Mara Czarnecki posted on

Cain took one of his sisters, not his mother, as a wife. Besides, prior to Torah, incest was tolerated. Look at even Adam and Eve. Eve was technically Adam's virgin-born daughter, the female clone of him. Also look at Abraham and Sarah and Nahor and Milkah.

+1
0
-1
PNUT1 posted on

There was no Cain and Abel, no Adam and Eve. The Human Genome Project puts that myth to rest, we did not come from two people but from groups of people . Adam and Eve are just characters in a fable, the bible is a work of FICTION, nothing more.

+1
-2
-1
Mojo Jojo posted on

Another completely clear example of sexual bias. They were both adults, the relationship was mutually consensual, so why is it that only the MAN is being charged and disparaged.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Excellent point!

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Are you kidding? That's a horrible point! Gender has nothing to do with it- age does. In these situations, it is the PARENT or other older consenting adult no matter what gender who is charged.

+1
-3
-1
Mojo Jojo posted on

Hardly. Are you suggesting that an adult woman is incapable of making a decision, that her mind is somehow inferior and as so easily manipulated? Should adult women be considered precious little snowflakes that should not be subject to the same laws that a man is because they are naturally unable to understand these rules that societies create? No, this is purely a case of sexual bias. If such overbearing manipulation were evident it would be considered by the jury during her trial. To not even be charged is nothing less than a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee that laws are applied equally.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm suggesting that it has everything to do with one person who has greater power over another. If the genders were reverse and a mother was engaging in incestuous activity with her son, that it would be the mother that would be charged. Similar cases present all the time when female high school teachers engage in and are charged for inappropriate interactions with male students of legal age.
In any case, this is a charge only, it has not been put to trial and we have no data on whether or not the daughter has been or will be charged. It's entirely possible depending on the situation.
Regardless, incest is taboo in almost all cultures for a valid reason- the results of any pregnancy especially in a parent/child mating has an incredibly high rate of birth defects and/or lethality. It is irresponsible to say the least, regardless of consent.

+1
-5
-1
Anonymous posted on

Would you care to specify and document this "incredibly high rate of birth defects and/or lethality"?
(It's higher than with a random stranger,but the odds are still clearly against it in any given case unless there's a specific known trait to worry about).

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Any genetic book will tell you this

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

No..no it won't. Incest from a genetic standpoint is a non-issue except over multiple generations. What this guy did (if in fact it turns out he did) was wrong. He had an obvious form of control over her as a parent and it does make one wonder how long this relationship has gone on. There are many documented cases of incest that begin when the victim is a child that continue on into adulthood. A parent-child sexual relationship will almost always include some form of manipulation and therefore not be consensual. And that is the problem...not because some hideous offspring will be born. Other mammals are frequently bred back to their parents to emphasize certain traits. Incest between other relatives, especially cousins and beyond, maybe taboo, but has limited genetic consequences unless you constrain the gene pool over several generations. A parent-child sexual relationship though, is not about taboo or genetics, it is about manipulation and control. And that is why it is both wrong and illegal.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Any genetic book" ROFL! As if you ever even glanced at one.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

except...that.....there have been women accused and convicted of the same. are you seriously that unfamiliar with how parental incest is usually viewed and treated? I mean I'm not a psych. person nor overly familiar (thank god) with this type of story but even I'm aware of how goes the dogma...that consent, as we think of it, isn't possible with parent-child incest.

+1
+1
-1
SJP posted on

Mojo Jojo is either an agent provocateur or a card-carrying, woman-hating member of NAMBLA.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

There seems to be a principle here that even between consenting adults there is sexual behavior that is and according to some, should be considered illegal and subject the participants to criminal prosecution. If that is so, and it occurred between two consenting adults, charging one and not the other is a clear violation of the law.

It actually makes about as much sense as the woman brought before Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery. If she was caught in the act, the man was there, but not charged. Have we reversed positions so that a woman if younger than the man is not to be charged but the man is? If he had been charged with molestation of a minor, that would be one thing, but he was charged with incest.

Only a few years ago women were routinely considered to be at fault for "enticing" a man to commit sexual assault. We have thankfully put that behind us (I hope), but to swing to the other side of the argument and claim that the man is always at fault is perpetuating sexual discrimination.

I, personally, have been approached and subject to unwanted sexual contact by women. Being first, the man, and second, the supervisor of the woman, I recognized that I had absolutely no recourse. I have been subjected to public charges and humiliating investigation in two of those incidents. After a complete absence of any suggestion of wrong doing on my part it was decided by the powers that be to order all parties to silence. Note that this was after a rather public investigation in which it was stated that I was being investigated for sexual misconduct.

Gals, it goes both ways, and it is not fun.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm sorry that you had to go through that. Unwanted sexual contact is hurtful for anyone, and for you to have to be investigated for something you did not invite is truly a sad state of affairs.

I'd like to gently say that I think you're allowing your negative experience to color your perception of this particular case. The issue is that as his daughter, it's not clear she was able to give consent. We simply don't yet know whether he had been grooming her for years, or whether she really did give free consent.

If it's found that she did give free consent, then I would agree with you that she should also be charged. But we just don't have the evidence yet.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"In these situations"...

What are you, an legal expert on criminal cases involving incest? I can't think of more than a handful of such cases I've even heard about in 40 years. What makes you an authority on "these situations"?

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

and who made the complaint in the first place if it was consensual? The mom?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

She did because he didn't satisfy her like he said he could. Limp dicked liberal.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS WITH THIS QUESTION. ONE IS THE PARENT. automatic coercion, power dynamics, etc. are you SERIOUS. lol. I just can't even comprehend how someone could even ASK this...

it's not about his being male. it's about his being the parent.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I know whereof you speak. In *any* relationship, there is always a power dynamic, regardless of the age of the participants. When your parent is sexual with you, he/she is exercising that dyamic. Whether the incestee is a child or and adult, your father is your father -- NOT your lover, unless you have internalized the idea that his power over you is absolute.
Don't judge his daughter until you have walked in an incest survivor's shoes.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Have you not experience the coercion of a child?

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Your point is absurd. How do you figure it to be sexual bias?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Another completely clear example of sexual bias. They were both adults, the relationship was mutually consensual, so why is it that only the MAN is being charged and disparaged."

...Because the man is the parent?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Tiger wasn't convicted at first either! This is worse. This predator works with young women...

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Maybe the predator is the young woman.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

admit it,anyone that holds this guys political views is a sociopath.he just got caught.maybe since his daughter was so fucking ugly,he was merely doing her a favor.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Huh. Don't ever do any women any favors, if that's how you operate. I think whether they're attractive or not they can somehow manage to muddle along without your help.

+1
+2
-1
Alan Davidson posted on

If this was a conservative or a republican (openly), it would be front page on the NYT and all over the MSM. Olbermann would open with it and the narrative would be such is inherent with republicans/conservatives. No mention either in this article that This scumbag wrote for the Huffington Post and was a Palin?bush basher extraordinaire.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ummmmm, this was reported by The Huffington Post.

huffingtonpost(dot)com/2010/12/10/david-epstein-incest-char_n_794864.html

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're a dummy, dummy.
If it was a politician, yes, this would be much bigger news. But it's really just a private individual that 99.9% of the US had never heard of before today.

Take a Xanax and a nice warm bath.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Great prescription, Bronan!

A couple of shots of Jack Daniel's would wash that Xanax down nicely as well, I should think.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Pics or it didn't happen?

+1
+3
-1
Heidi posted on

Leave it to a liberal professor at an ivy league college.. BWHAAAAAAAAA

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're right. Obviously this proves something about people above and beyond the two suspected of committing the crime. Just as David Vitter proved that all Republicans use prostitutes, Charlie Rangel that every single Democrat in America owns multiple rent-controlled New York apartments, Rush Limbaugh proves that all radio hosts are recovering drug addicts, etc etc etc ... if we can't make sweeping generalizations from isolated incidents, then how can we even live with ourselves?

Oh no wait: none of that. All that's been proven here is

a) One single individual has been charged with a crime

and

b) You're about seven years old.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Right, this chump aims nasty jabs at Palin for the way she raises her kids (nothing wrong with having that opinion, BTW) but he's having sex with his own? Um... nice.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

The real question is whether this man and his daughter should have the right to marry--if I understand today's standards properly.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

“He’d always been fairly jovial,” he said. “He seemed to be a very nice guy.”

Oh! Well then! Hey, he could not possibly have sexually abused his daughter....he's jovial and a "nice guy!"

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

that's so true!

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Protect and respect the sanctity of marriage!"

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I wonder who reported it, how it got out? no stories mention anything about that (yet anyway).

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Could be a smear job.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

It could have been worse since he could have had sex with another man.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yea. Good thing he has no sons.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

No abuse present here.....just TWO nasty people...charge the bitch as well.

+1
+1
-1
morristhewise posted on

It would be interesting to see what the rule of law would be if a 30 year old prostitute was paid by her father, mother, and grandparents to engage in group sex. Would they all be arrested for incest or just disobeying the laws against prostitution?

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

The prosecution would try to go after whichever carried the most jail time; the defense would argue bargain for the lesser offense.

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

It would also be interesting if we could see what the rule of law would be if a naked girl had sex with her brother on the back of an elephant riding a tricycle while the elephant had sex with a monarch butterfly while two gay dragonflies mated with their siblings as morristhewise videotaped it all.

All this "thinking" is making my brain hurt!

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

It is most (not all, but most) depressing to encounter the ignorant vitriol that is supposed to pass for intelligent discussion on these posts. Good luck to those who embrace their ignorance and intolerance so vociferously. I know this man. You do not. I do not know if these allegations are true or not. Neither do you. I do know that he is a man of great intelligence that spans history, politics and constitutional law. Those of you who understand their basic law cannot convict PRE-TRIAL , no matter their personal prismatics. If the allegations be true, then he (possibly she) will be tried by a jury of their peers. Until then, keep your ignorant, petty AND FRANKLY BOORISH comments to yourselves. I know you won't - just sayin,...

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

You forgot another possbility. If the allegations be true, his conscience could make him plead guilty. On second thought, maybe you intentionally omitted this possbility. After all, you did write that you know this person. I will reserve judgment as to whether he is a man once the facts of this situation become known.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on


desirae,

You sound like his sister or cousin. Did he ever attempt to seduce you? All you said was that he was intelligent. I don't think anyone here denies this. However, intelligent people can be mentally ill and clearly this man needs immediate psychiatric help. If you care about him, you should urge him to seek treatment immediately. He needs a combination of medicine and behavorial therapy. Fifty years ago they would have locked him up in a psychiatric hospital and given him sedatives to control his urges.

Shame on you for publicly defending a horrific act.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ah, little bit of a misunderstanding. The judicial system has to have the concept of innocent 'till proven guilty. The public and the press does not.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

O'Halloran is not the girl's mother, by the way. Their marriage occurred nearly a decade after the daughter's birth.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

This is deplorable. But not a surprise. What is most sad is that his daughter likely does not know how destructive he has been to her; how evil this crime is. My guess is she thinks he "loves her" when in fact his own narcissism must have inspired this supreme abuse and breach of trust. Ironic it's mentioned he is connected to Stanford and blogged for HP: my own father has a child some have called his "wife" and he graduated from Columbia. I wonder what is in the water there? Surely intelligence and academic accomplishment does not a moral or decent man make. Maybe he thought he'd never get caught? It's an illness alright. He needs help. But jail will certainly hold him accountable when the rest of the world will find a way to blame "her". Isn't it what we do? Blame women for crimes against them? Will this be his defense ("she wanted it!")... All except the sex.

Likely it was the only way she could get her father's approval or attention. How sad! I wonder if my sister liked to be called a "wife?"..

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Wow! You have this case all figured out! What an astonishing capacity to analyze events you know absolutely nothing about!

Itsbullshittellingtime would be more like it.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I want to make clear that personally I believe that this is a deplorable act-- a sign of the general decline in morality among the elites in this country. And just as the super intelligent traders and investment bankers that work at GS and Lehman have shown themselves to have no regard for their fellow humans, there is a general deficit of ethics in the new younger cohort of university faculty in this country. But legally speaking, I do have my doubts about why the law should see this as any different from any relationship between consenting adults, especially if she could submit proof that she does not plan to have children, ie if her tubes are tied, or she has an IUD.

There used to be an adherence to natural law in the West that saw all such relations i.e. same sex relations, incest, bestiality, as the same legal category. We abandoned that some time ago, and are we better for having done so? I don't know, but those people that see this as deplorable need to show why it is any different from the other categories of behavior that used to be prohibited under a concept of natural law like gay sex. Just saying its "icky" does not advance the conversation one bit.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Good point, and it seems consenting adult Incest is not a crime in all states.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Crappy point.

First of all, how does ONE INCIDENT constitute "a sign of the general decline" of ANYTHING?

And what the hell is "natural law"? There are animal species that reproduce asexually, cloning themselves: there are same-sex relationships among animals as well as inbreeding. What the hell are you talking about?
Have you ever read a book about animal behavior in your life? And if you're not talking about "animal behavior" when you rant about "natural law", then I repeat: what the hell are you talking about?

Just keep your medieval mentality to yourself, buster. Western society has moved on from the days of absolute monarchs and state religions condemning people to death for "moral failings". And yes, that IS a good thing, and it will be defended by those who will not go back to your "good old days" of "natural law": witch burnings, slavery and generalized poverty and starvation.

+1
0
-1
DaMav posted on

Wait, is this the same bunch of faculty yahoos at "Columbia" who gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad oral love a few years back?

If Palin runs for President one of her adverts should be that she "has nothing to do with the perverts and rubes of Columbia University".

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

I am not sure you understand how oral love works (also, "oral love"? Seriously? How very 13-years-old of you). It usually doesn't entail sitting someone down on a stage, in front of the media, and essentially insulting them for more than an hour (unless you're into that sort of foreplay, in which case I'm guessing you're laboring under the impression that Ahmadinejad had a good time visiting PrezBo. I for one was rather glad to see him be publicly humiliated, but based on what he had to say about Columbia afterward, I don't think he's the submissive type).

Also, evidence indicates Palin goes out of her way to identify with "rubes." That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Why is this news? Regardless of what your morals are, if they were consenting adults who gives a shit what anyone else thinks? What is morally repugnant is that the Spectator would sink to the level of the NY Post or other tabloid garbage and print this shit. Shame on you and shame on anyone who thiks this is their business.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Because it is "unlawful". Shame on you for your shallow thought process.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Eric who made you King? The reason you don't understand WHOCARES??? is you thinking is very very shallow. By the way Who is absolutely Right on the issue..

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Why is this news? Regardless of what your morals are,"

"Political science professor David Epstein"

I hope you are not a Pol/Sci major....I think the irony would be so thick that my head would explode.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Are there really people out there that don't think having sex with your daughter should be unlawful?! You're kidding, right?

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Me!. Immoral, repugnant, unacceptable, shameful ....Yes but unlawful.....NO. Why are we so obsessed with what two adults do in the bedroom. Sex in and of itself doesn't harm somebody.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I don't think that having sex with your daughter should be unlawful! It should not be the business of the state to interfere in the consensual sexual relationships between people of any race, gender, age or any other criterion.

Just blew your tiny little mind. I could hear the squeak all the way over here.

Government out of the bedrooms!

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

The issue is that she may be an "adult" now, according to her age, but how long did the "grooming" go on for? Also, by her father being in a position of power over her for her entire life (as her parent), she could not possibly have truly "consented" in the same manner as someone who came into a sexual relationship objectively and equally, despite her age. And lastly....eww! There is a reason why incest is taboo across all cultures and why we instinctively recoil at the idea. Yes, HE should have consequences.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Grooming" - what a load of crap. As if an adult woman can't decide for herself if she wants to have sex with her father, or brother, or uncle or aunt or whatever.

So if the father and daughter had a loving non-sexual relationship before the daughter "came of age", it was all nothing but "grooming".

How very condescending of you. How could these two people have POSSIBLY simply had a deep love for each other all that time, that was finally consummated sexually. It's IMPOSSIBLE - in your tiny world.

To people like you, women are eternal children, in need of the only true paternal love that exists: that between the Fatherland and it's children. The state/father alone loves you, woman-child. All the other men are just "grooming" you for sex. What a load of garbage.

To you, and way too many people like you, women are an inherently inferior and weaker sex that need to be protected by the state from everything - even their own desires. Equal rights for women is a utopian scheme in your view, one that can only bring harm to the women-children.

+1
0
-1

Pages