'Everybody does it': Lawrence Taylor defends himself for soliciting an under age prostitute

The Daily Mail ^ | March 23, 2011 | Daily Mail Reporter

[Poison Pill]

What I don’t understand is how did he get caught? He said he paid her $300.00.

Surprised LT had to pay for it. Where was he? Philly?

[dfwgator]

Surprised LT had to pay for it. Where was he? Philly?

"In Philadelphia, it's worth 50 bucks."

[TSgt]

Very mature of you. Come back when you can debate like an adult.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2693400/posts?page=36#36

[Mr. Silverback]

You know, I was thinking...we’ve gone from operation names picked roughly at random or for some reason of sly humor by generals (Operation Torch, Operation Linebacker, Operation Mincemeat) to names picked by a PR department (Operation Just Cause, Operation Enduring Freedom) to an operation name that sounds like the name an eight year old picked for her stuffed unicorn toy: Odyssey Dawn.

Heck, even Carter did better than this. Operation Eagle Claw...now that’s a name! Too bad the actual operation was a cluster.

[Alberta's Child]

From what I understand, the original case involved the physical abuse of the girl by her "pimp," and he was being prosecuted for prostitution involving underage girls. I believe Taylor's name came up because he was the girl's last "paying customer" before she filed the criminal complaint. Taylor could have faced a long prison sentence, but he became a cooperative witness against the original target of the prosecution.

Also, I believe Taylor had no "I didn't know how old she was" defense because he had secured the services of this girl knowing full well that she was underage (in fact, he had sought out this "pimp" in particular because he was looking for a young girl).

What a bunch of sorry-@ssed losers all around.

[Alberta's Child]

See Post #45. This was a more complex case than just the simple prosecution of Lawrence Taylor.

[jessduntno]

The point of that story (and it is just a story not a fact) was NOT that everybody does it; the point was that there might be a few rotten apples in any barrel. And that many professions are subject to similar problems, as disgusting as that is. Did you check the statistics provided? They happen to be correct. That was a sad attempt to justify your slur. Either poor comprehension or a real stubborn streak is blinding you.

[elcid1970]

The Archbishop defended the Catholic priesthood well.

You were mistaken to post his conversation with the anti-Catholic bigot in the airport. It weakens your `case’.

Dig your heels in all you want. You’re still a bigot.

[rogue yam]

I saw that essay earlier and thought it contrived and overly self-concerned, but it doesn’t even come close to proving the ugly charge you laid.

[Carley]

even whores ought to have birth certificate

[GJones2]

Because people are reluctant to object to extreme statements about punishment (for persons they’re reluctant to be seen defending), there’s a tendency for legislators to make penalties harsher and harsher. Don’t you think, though, that the death penalty for having sex with a sixteen-year-old prostitute — who could pass for nineteen — is taking things too far? It reminds me of the kind of thing that the Taliban and Al Qaeda support.

I believe that punishments should be in proportion to the harm done (or in rare cases attempted), and to the possible good that might result from invoking them. In this case — and whatever I may think of Lawrence Taylor as a person — it appears that no significant harm was done to the girl, by him anyway. (I doubt very much that an innocent girl was dragged off the street, beaten by the pimp, and forced to go to his room.) Now, though, she has become a celebrity in a negative sense — as a victim — and that may affect her life more than the single incident with Taylor.

[TSgt]

My, aren’t you a fine representative of your faith?

[savagesusie]

I think you mean the homosexual-practicing priests....a particularly grievous sin according to the Catholic canon.

It is our culture and media, forcing through the unjust laws, that idea that “unnatural” is natural and no “sin” at all. They demonize Church Theology and pervert even the clergy, in many so-called “Christian” churches.

That some priests have been indoctrinated with this secular humanism is to be expected, since they are just that ....humans. The fault lies in the culture of moral relativism, not with moral absolutes. It is the atheist v. Christian worldview.

Pagan/atheism allows all sexual perversions and forces them onto the people using law....kindof like that Marxist zero who repealed the DOMA act which basically repeals sexual morality. It is a slippery slope and will include pederasty, which all homosexual societies adopt as good. After all, homosexuality is a learned behavior and goes against nature. Nature is our base for reason and logic. When you pervert it, everything can be a good.

For the lie to become truth, nature of man has to be perverted. Look at the Afghanistan culture if you want to see what happens when one promotes homosexuality....same with ancient Greece and Rome. To promote unnatural acts leads to all perversion.

Catholic Theology believes in Objective Truth....and it is the most consistent of all Christian religions. It is one of the only still existing group with a worldview that has embraced Natural Law Theory (Our country was founded on this theory and universal moral truth(Locke). Moral relativism which will allow every single behavior man can think of, at some point, is what the Church is fighting.

Behaviors that are promoted in a culture, become the norm—just like slavery was considered normal for centuries and still is in atheist/pagan/pantheism/religions devoid of reason and logic.

The thought that Satan doesn’t enter the Church and tempt man—clergy are immune to Satan— is naive and a misunderstanding of the nature of sin.

[Alberta's Child]

You have completely misrepresented what Archbishop Dolan said to that guy.

He wasn't making the case that "everybody does it" at all . . . he was simply pointing out that the guy's (admitted) reflexive hostility to Catholic priests had less of a basis in fact than a similar reflexive hostility to school teachers, ministers of other denominations, or men in general.

You deliberately refrained from posting the entire conversation, didn't you?

Because by the end of Dolan's conversation the guy completely understood the point he was trying to make.

[TSgt]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

While we may disagree I appreciate that we can debate like adults rather than the rancor found elsewhere on this thread.

[Second Amendment First]

Reluctantly, I must agree with you.

[faucetman]

oooooooo, get used to it. It's not going away. Turn the other cheek. It is indefensible what the priests did and how the church covered it up. God may forgive them, the public won't.

[Cailleach]

I wondered about that...usually when I report abuse, the post is gone before I’ve re-loaded the page...I was really quite shocked that the comment I reported here was allowed to stay. :(

[GJones2]

Also a very important thing to bear in mind — even with major offenses against younger and more innocent children — is that if you use the death penalty for offenses that don’t result in death, you’re in effect giving the offenders an incentive to kill the victim (and to decrease their chances of getting caught by leaving no witnesses).

I think the penalties should be great enough to provide some justice for the victims (and their parents), but not so severe as to encourage the perpetrators to go ahead and kill them. The difference between getting back an abused child alive, and getting back one whose body has to be dug up somewhere is, in my opinion, like light and day. I think the penalties should be too. If there’s serious damage, a serious penalty; if minor damage (or doubtful damage) like the exposure that Shirley Temple laughed at, then a minor penalty. Certainly not the death penalty unless the child was murdered (or tormented, and murder attempted).