Popular Liberal radio host admits to distributing child porn.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's what you two are doing. You project the adults view that children can't in any way want to have sex. It's just not true.

I wanted to have sex at least since I was 12. With Movie Stars. Adult Movie Stars.

Why should I be denied that, if given the chance, because adults think that all 12 year olds are asexual idiots?

Nope. What I was doing, was remebering what it was like to be 8 and not give a shit about sex.

Prove its not true.

7 yrs old might be though. You speak as if nonces restrict their pron to 12 yrs olds.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
So if they want to find out tongue first what the orangey glowey bars taste like on an old electric heater, then they should be able to while you stand by, watch and do nothing...?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. What I was doing, was remebering what it was like to be 8 and not give a shit about sex.

Prove its not true.

7 yrs old might be though. You speak as if nonces restrict their pron to 12 yrs olds.

No. I speak as if the law INCLUDES 12 year olds.

Which it does.

Point step-stepping.

And you cant name any kids who want sex with adults, and since that that is a fundimental point to your argument, I'll take that as admission. And the Adult as you noted, just now, is still responsible, and ergo Peodo groups can get stuffed.

"If they are able to understand the consequences."
Failed comparison due to the fact that young kids are without the hormone levels to facilitate sexual desire, and they lack the sexual knowledge/memory too. They have literally no knowledge, and therefore lack the understanding.

And even if they theoretically had sex ed, they still just read it, which is a whole lot different from doing things and living with the knowledge that creates knowledge of consequence.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Point step-stepping.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A child cannot legally give consent in many places. Nor can one simply assume that a child really knows what is going on.

Obviously I didn't mean in terms of the current legal system, it was a matter of opinion that the current one is flawed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If they are able to understand the consequences. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape. But, a randomly chosen line for when someone can consent is contrary to the truth of the nature of consent.

I do agree to a blanket law of some sort. I could see people just saying that the kid knew what was going on and they wanted the pleasure; therefore....

Maybe 14 years of age as a cut off. Any younger than that and I see too many people trying to take advantage.

Speaking of which, I was on the way to the store and this guy almost ran his car into mine because he was looking at the ass of some teenage girls. He was in this convertible, with the top down, and on the phone. I think that is pitiful and and the girls didn't seem to like it (he was ugly and 40 so go figure). The man didn't even bother to brake this damn car and just kept rolling on until I yelled out the damn window.

It's easy to spot "a predator" LOL

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's hard to judge, I admit that. But that's exactly the reason why it is ridiculous how people flip out when someone mentions child porn or molestation of children. It's in no way related to the crime. Everytime something like that happens you have a judge amount of people that would just love to torture that person (ANOTHER HUMAN BEING). Torture being factually much, much worse than being touched in the vagina.

Same with Rape. It is made much worse and seen as much worse by society. But really. Like Doug Stanhope says, if I got the shit beaten out of me at the moment and the guy would stop and give me the option of getting ****ed in the ass or getting the shit beaten out of me much more...I'd ****ing know what I choose. The victimization that happens is the real problem. The act itself is often less worse than assault...

Exactly, it's hard, nay near impossible to judge so we have laws that say "yes" and "no" at this age to this age

By your rational, a three year old could give consent, but a line has to be drawn.

Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, it's hard, nay near impossible to judge so we have laws that say "yes" and "no" at this age to this age

By your rational, a three year old could give consent, but a line has to be drawn.

Why does a line have to be drawn?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What?

My point is, that without the frame of reference of extreme heat and tongue, in the heater scenario, that the kid needs to be guided or it will hurt itself.

But if your belief truely is that that kid will be born with full electrical equipment knowledge, then my debating with you is unlikely to be of any use.

And I dont care how much you want sex with 12 yr olds to be legal, I'll never advocate it, which I guess goes back to my point on the uselessness of a debate here guess..

And even as a 12 yr old if you wanted to sex, you might wanna drive too, but you ain't getting a licence.

And with that I shall leave you to it.

Originally posted by chithappens
If you replace 'child' with 'person' (even if we included animals) it could work. Being over 18 doesn't make you less of an idiot. We all know adults who do dumb shit all of the time because they were "convinced."

I see your point but just as you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children.

Personally, I don't give a **** if the child understood. Often times, that is a moot point because they are still trying to convince a child to have sex with them ( I think there is an issue with people who can't get some sex from someone their own age; not including 65 and above here... 😆 ), but it is a case by case basis.

Yet a line has to be drawn because it would be next to impossible. Someone decided that by 18, you've had enough experience to be aware of your actions, should this be a bit younger? Possible, yet a line has to be drawn.

Sure you can, children are far more inexperienced and not mentally mature as adults in the majority of cases. Should we do away with the adult and minor criminal processes? Because after all, "you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children."

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
My point is, that without the frame of reference of extreme heat and tongue, in the heater scenario, that the kid needs to be guided or it will hurt itself.

I agree.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But if your belief truely is that that kid will be born with full electrical equipment knowledge, then my debating with you is unlikely to be of any use.

Never said that.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And I dont care how much you want sex with 12 yr olds to be legal, I'll never advocate it, which I guess goes back to my point on the uselessness of a debate here guess..

That's fair enough. I don't want sex with 12 year olds to be legal. I want everyone (EVERYONE) that really wants sex to have the right to have it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And even as a 12 yr old if you wanted to sex, you might wanna drive too, but you ain't getting a licence.

I should if I was able to drive.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And with that I shall leave you to it.

Okay.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet a line has to be drawn because it would be next to impossible. Someone decided that by 18, you've had enough experience to be aware of your actions, should this be a bit younger? Possible, yet a line has to be drawn.

Sure you can, children are far more inexperienced and not mentally mature as adults in the majority of cases. Should we do away with the adult and minor criminal processes? Because after all, "you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why does a line have to be drawn?

Because it would be impossible to judge every single thing on a case to case basis and how do you exactly judge if a certain 3, 6, 9, 12 or 14 is mature enough and in control of his/her actions enough to be aware of what could happen if they **** a 40 year old?

Originally posted by Bardock42
A line doesn't actually have to be drawn. It is the governments inability to judge individually, thereby looking for a shortcut. The line is NOT necessary.

Then show a way where it could reasonably be done? Don't just say "it could".

Originally posted by Robtard
Because it would be impossible to judge every single thing on a case to case basis and how do you exactly judge if a certain 3, 6, 9, 12 or 14 is mature enough and in control of his/her actions enough to be aware of what could happen if they **** a 40 year old?

Then show a way where it could reasonably be done? Don't just say "it could".

You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.

Ya had to reel back me in didntcha. 😉

Originally posted by Bardock42

Never said that

Well you kinda did by analogy when you said that a little kid could have knowledge of and therefore deserving of sexual consequence. My argument was that they dont.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well you kinda did by analogy when you said that a little kid could have knowledge of and therefore deserving of sexual consequence. My argument was that they dont.

Some do, some don't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A line doesn't actually have to be drawn. It is the governments inability to judge individually, thereby looking for a shortcut. The line is NOT necessary.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If it's not drawn, it's not a line.

STFU, debbie.

Oh, sorry, xyz.

Originally posted by Bardock42
STFU, debbie.

Oh, sorry, xyz.