There are plenty of pro-pedo libs. It's not a stretch:Rocag said:
You're back to the "Everyone who criticizes this movie supports child trafficking!" nonsense. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you on that idiocy.
Anyone seen Sound of Freedom?
131,911 Views |
1514 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by General Jack D. Ripper
TCTTS
Joined:
Mar 10, 2004
Posts:
56,313
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because you always lose?boy09 said:Sapper Redux said:
Posting this because I'm curious if you're physiologically capable of allowing someone else the final word on anything.
Never engage with aTmAg
There are pedophiles all across the political spectrum. Including plenty of conservatives. Please don't pretend otherwise.
Rocag said:
There are pedophiles all across the political spectrum. Including plenty of conservatives. Please don't pretend otherwise.
Conservatives don't get to call them Minor Attracted Persons and keep their jobs at university.
Eh, from an academic perspective I get it. The base assumption is that people don't actively choose who they are attracted to. A straight person doesn't choose to be straight and a gay person doesn't choose to be gay, it's something that is inherent to their psychological profile. Likewise there could certainly be people out there who are attracted to minors without having actively chosen to be.
Should they face punishment for a feeling beyond their control? I'd say no. But at the same time acting on that feeling is criminalized because we have declared that minors can't provide informed consent. I'm also fine with that.
Should they face punishment for a feeling beyond their control? I'd say no. But at the same time acting on that feeling is criminalized because we have declared that minors can't provide informed consent. I'm also fine with that.
Rocag said:
Eh, from an academic perspective I get it. The base assumption is that people don't actively choose who they are attracted to. A straight person doesn't choose to be straight and a gay person doesn't choose to be gay, it's something that is inherent to their psychological profile. Likewise there could certainly be people out there who are attracted to minors without having actively chosen to be.
Should they face punishment for a feeling beyond their control? I'd say no. But at the same time acting on that feeling is criminalized because we have declared that minors can't provide informed consent. I'm also fine with that.
In an academic sense.
How about in a legislative sense?
Quote:
California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a controversial new law regarding judges' discretion on whether or not to add individuals to the state's sex offender registry who have committed sodomy with minors.
Newsom signed the bill, passed by the Democratic-controlled state legislature, into law without comment on Friday, expanding the discretion granted to judges in statutory rape cases, according to ABC 7 News Los Angeles.
California law permitted judges to decide whether to place a man on the sex offender registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. However, that discretion only applied to vaginal intercourse, which LGBT advocates, including the author of the new bill signed into law Friday, argued was discriminatory toward gay men.
Conservatives don't legislate it. Liberals do. Such as California refusing to categorize child trafficking as a "serious felony", until this movie became a thing.Rocag said:
There are pedophiles all across the political spectrum. Including plenty of conservatives. Please don't pretend otherwise.
Conservative pedos hide the fact that they are pedos and, if discovered, are prosecuted/shamed/etc. mercilessly. Liberals (such as those referenced in the video) write books about it and are praised by fellow liberals.
Lots of states including Texas have what are sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet Laws" which allow relationships between minors and young adults depending on the age difference. I doubt anyone objects to a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, but at some point we get to an age difference where it is objectionable. What's that difference? I don't know. I'm glad I'm not a politician that has to decide it either.
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
Perhaps disclosure will reveal much that has been kept under wraps.
"I have been told that we have recovered technology that did not originate on this".-Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence-Chris Mellon
“Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense.” Former CIA Director, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, public statement, 1960.
“Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense.” Former CIA Director, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, public statement, 1960.
Nice... Justifying pedos. Thanks for proving my point.Rocag said:
Lots of states including Texas have what are sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet Laws" which allow relationships between minors and young adults depending on the age difference. I doubt anyone objects to a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, but at some point we get to an age difference where it is objectionable. What's that difference? I don't know. I'm glad I'm not a politician that has to decide it either.
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
Rocag said:
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
In your interpretation, what is the largest age gap allowable under the new law?
"California law permitted judges to decide whether to place a man on the sex offender registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. "
Sometimes I agree with stuff you post but at times like this I ask "What is the color of the sky in your world"?aTmAg said:Nice... Justifying pedos. Thanks for proving my point.Rocag said:
Lots of states including Texas have what are sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet Laws" which allow relationships between minors and young adults depending on the age difference. I doubt anyone objects to a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, but at some point we get to an age difference where it is objectionable. What's that difference? I don't know. I'm glad I'm not a politician that has to decide it either.
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
Answer my question first then we'll get to yours.
Edit: Thought your were aTmAg when I wrote that, but point still stands. You quoted me without answering the question. I'd like to hear one.
Edit: Thought your were aTmAg when I wrote that, but point still stands. You quoted me without answering the question. I'd like to hear one.
That's not the objectional part. The part I highlighted is.Rocag said:
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
Rocag said:
Answer my question first then we'll get to yours.
Edit: Thought your were aTmAg when I wrote that, but point still stands. You quoted me without answering the question. I'd like to hear one.
A pedophile. No.
An illegal act? Yes.
And that California stops at 14 only temporarilly if history is any guide.
If in your world, you have to ask what's the difference between pedophilia and a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, then I don't want to know what color your sky is.agracer said:Sometimes I agree with stuff you post but at times like this I ask "What is the color of the sky in your world"?aTmAg said:Nice... Justifying pedos. Thanks for proving my point.Rocag said:
Lots of states including Texas have what are sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet Laws" which allow relationships between minors and young adults depending on the age difference. I doubt anyone objects to a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, but at some point we get to an age difference where it is objectionable. What's that difference? I don't know. I'm glad I'm not a politician that has to decide it either.
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
If you believe that it is OK for an 18 year old (an adult) to have a relationship with a 17 year old (a minor) then you are by definition saying that in some cases it is OK for an adult to have a relationship with a minor. You seem to not find this objectionable.aTmAg said:That's not the objectional part. The part I highlighted is.Rocag said:
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
I fail to see why following that up with asking at what point that relationship becomes a problem is objectionable to you.
It's not saying its legal, its just letting the judge make the call if they have to register as a SO if its within 10 years. California is more strict than Texas in this regards.Squadron7 said:Rocag said:
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
In your interpretation, what is the largest age gap allowable under the new law?
"California law permitted judges to decide whether to place a man on the sex offender registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. "
Let's cut to the chase: Do you think it's okay for a 30 year old man to bang a 17 year old if both say it's okay?Rocag said:If you believe that it is OK for an 18 year old (an adult) to have a relationship with a 17 year old (a minor) then you are by definition saying that in some cases it is OK for an adult to have a relationship with a minor. You seem to not find this objectionable.aTmAg said:That's not the objectional part. The part I highlighted is.Rocag said:
Honest question: Would you consider an 18 year old dating a 17 year old a pedophile?
If you say no, aren't you justifying pedophilia?
I fail to see why following that up with asking at what point that relationship becomes a problem is objectionable to you.
Nice try, but you can't trick me.aTmAg said:Because you always lose?boy09 said:Sapper Redux said:
Posting this because I'm curious if you're physiologically capable of allowing someone else the final word on anything.
Never engage with aTmAg
You have admitted defeat then.boy09 said:Nice try, but you can't trick me.aTmAg said:Because you always lose?boy09 said:Sapper Redux said:
Posting this because I'm curious if you're physiologically capable of allowing someone else the final word on anything.
Never engage with aTmAg
No. But I'm not seeing how that's really relevant since that is a 13 year age gap (in other words would not be left to the judge's discretion under the California law Squadron7 is talking about).
I'm not familiar with what Squadron7 is talking about. But liberals in California did refuse 9 times over a decade to count child trafficking as a "serious felony" making it ineligible for the "3 strikes" law. In what sane world would somebody want to exclude that?Rocag said:
No. But I'm not seeing how that's really relevant since that is a 13 year age gap (in other words would not be left to the judge's discretion under the California law Squadron7 is talking about).
So basically you're just out here accusing people of "justifying pedos" without actually having any clue what is being discussed.aTmAg said:I'm not familiar with what Squadron7 is talking about. But liberals in California did refuse 9 times over a decade to count child trafficking as a "serious felony" making it ineligible for the "3 strikes" law. In what sane world would somebody want to exclude that?Rocag said:
No. But I'm not seeing how that's really relevant since that is a 13 year age gap (in other words would not be left to the judge's discretion under the California law Squadron7 is talking about).
Cool.
Some of us have spent decades building up a toleranceboy09 said:Sapper Redux said:
Posting this because I'm curious if you're physiologically capable of allowing someone else the final word on anything.
Never engage with aTmAg
(no bone in this fight... I just like quotes from the Princess Bride)
The California law is a relaxation.
Look for more from that quarter.
Look for more from that quarter.
You do realize that multiple examples can be discussed at once?Rocag said:So basically you're just out here accusing people of "justifying pedos" without actually having any clue what is being discussed.aTmAg said:I'm not familiar with what Squadron7 is talking about. But liberals in California did refuse 9 times over a decade to count child trafficking as a "serious felony" making it ineligible for the "3 strikes" law. In what sane world would somebody want to exclude that?Rocag said:
No. But I'm not seeing how that's really relevant since that is a 13 year age gap (in other words would not be left to the judge's discretion under the California law Squadron7 is talking about).
Cool.
Did you even watch the video I posted that talks about the subject (before Squadron7 posted his)?
aTmAg said:If in your world, you have to ask what's the difference between pedophilia and a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, then I don't want to know what color your sky is.agracer said:Sometimes I agree with stuff you post but at times like this I ask "What is the color of the sky in your world"?aTmAg said:Nice... Justifying pedos. Thanks for proving my point.Rocag said:
Lots of states including Texas have what are sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet Laws" which allow relationships between minors and young adults depending on the age difference. I doubt anyone objects to a 17 year old dating an 18 year old, but at some point we get to an age difference where it is objectionable. What's that difference? I don't know. I'm glad I'm not a politician that has to decide it either.
And on the flip side of this we have Republican elected officials defending child marriages for some reason. Which is worse?
They weren't saying "what's the difference" in the way you read it. They're asking what the difference in ages is / should be for it to be objectionable. Like difference as in X minus Y.
This movie is about little kids being bought and raped by grown ass men. In that context, it's pretty gross to ask, "but what age span is okay?", don't you think?
You're just upset that it got pointed out that your last few posts only happened because you didn't know "difference" can mean the remainder of one number subtracted from another.
I'm not upset, in disgusted by your question. Why would you ask that in a thread about an anti-child trafficking movie? You might as well ask, how old is "old enough"?
Because Squadron7 and I were discussing a California law he brought up that gives judges authority to decide whether someone who has sex with a minor should be on the sex offender list for cases in which that age difference is less than 10 years. You know, that part of the thread you already admitted you weren't paying attention to? It was not in direct relation to the movie.
Honestly, it's not that difficult to go back and read the thread and see for yourself what the context was. Hurling insults and accusations against people in conversations you aren't even paying attention to is pretty low.
Honestly, it's not that difficult to go back and read the thread and see for yourself what the context was. Hurling insults and accusations against people in conversations you aren't even paying attention to is pretty low.
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
1d ago
2.3k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
1d ago
6.9k
47:49
1d ago
2.4k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
1d ago
2.2k