It was 30 years ago. Even if he had killed somebody 30 years ago and lived ever since without any serious incident I would consider it to have minor relevancy for someone's character today. From a legal perspective, sure there have to be consequences. But from a moral perspective, I respect it even higher when somebody was able to change the life to the better.

To clarify you disagree with “an unpunished and unrepentant paedophile at the age of 30 should not be elected to office” and you actually just said that they are _improved morally your eyes by the experience_.

Just blows my mind. I can’t believe I’m on the internet arguing with such ignorant garbage.

You need to get a reality check and meet some victims mate, because that opinion is _objectively_ disgusting.

Your inability to tolerate different viewpoints and resulting parade of ad hominems are exactly the reason why many keep their opinions to the voting booth.

The attacks aren't ad hominem if they are "you are an abhorrent human being for considering pedophilia a 'different viewpoint'". The attack is directly against you for your terrible views. Ad hominem would be: "Your views on Net Neutrally are wrong because you and your party support child rapists".

It's not a different viewpoint.

Minor relevancy? They would have improved in character if they owned it when exposed and accepted whatever would be their fate. That is being moral.

Going on a concerted effort to deny their actions, diminish the victims, delegitimatise the media and further divide people IS NOT MORAL.

I hope you change your stupid point of view, it's just that: stupid.