Slowly normalizing pedophilia

[Casual Observer 597]

20 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

What's a bigger threat to lil kids these days?  The catholic church or that monkey dude at the library?

Monkey dude and denialists like you.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

Poor deflection here.  You already achieved Pedo Defender IV status.

GFY, I never defended a pedo you piece of sh1t

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

Monkey dude and denialists like you.

I guarantee you the catholic church has raped thousands more kids than monkey dude.  You are a disgusting person, pedo defender.

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

GFY, I never defended a pedo you piece of sh1t

You have been doing it for days. Everyone sees it except you.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

28 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Huh?

Did I stutter?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

You have been doing it for days. Everyone sees it except you.

No, retards like you that think that Founders makes a 120 min IPA see it.  You people are all idiots.  You virtue signalers with your "STOP ALL PEDOS" BS is nasueating, you woke pieces of sh1t.

Oh, you're better than everyone, you're defending the kids from pedos.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Did I stutter?

Just seemed like a dumb post.  It's not a partisan issue yet some like to act like it is.  That's all.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

No, retards like you that think that Founders makes a 120 min IPA see it.  You people are all idiots.  You virtue signalers with your "STOP ALL PEDOS" BS is nasueating, you woke pieces of sh1t.

Oh, you're better than everyone, you're defending the kids from pedos.

I mixed up beers. You defend pedos. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

I mixed up beers. You defend pedos. 

You're a virtue signaling retard that defends pedos, shut up.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

I mixed up beers. You defend pedos. 

I have yet to see anyone defend a pedophile here.  Why is there a need to make crap up so often?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have yet to see anyone defend a pedophile here.  Why is there a need to make crap up so often?

Virtue signaling.

[Reality 2,710]

You guys made it to the 'I know you are but, what am I?' stage.

Well done, riveting.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

3 minutes ago, Reality said:

You guys made it to the 'I know you are but, what am I?' stage.

Well done, riveting.

That's every thread.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

GFY, I never defended a pedo you piece of sh1t

Multiple posts every day in this thread, hamhanded attempts at deflection, 2008 era "You guys are afraid" rhetoric, all offered in defense.  That's about all I need to see.  Henceforth, you shall be known as Pedo Defender IV.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

Multiple posts every day in this thread, hamhanded attempts at deflection, 2008 era "You guys are afraid" rhetoric, all offered in defense.  That's about all I need to see.  Henceforth, you shall be known as Pedo Defender IV.

Casual Pedo, virtue signaling his disgust at a 5 year old girl dancing, and then a monkey man with a fake dong, all while bowing at the altar of men that have raped thousands of boys.  Pedo Defender #1 is you the ultimate enabler.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

I guarantee you the catholic church has raped thousands more kids than monkey dude.  You are a disgusting person, pedo defender.

"Who is the bigger threat?" is a present-tense question.  I should think the Catholic Church has enough scrutiny on it right now.  I would imagine an institution filled with numerous individuals could pull off more misdeeds than a single person, though.  What was your point?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

Gutterboy never heard of Bacha Bazi. You would think that a guy who is so concerned for the well being of children would have and at some point condemned it. 

[Casual Observer 597]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Casual Pedo, virtue signaling his disgust at a 5 year old girl dancing, and then a monkey man with a fake dong, all while bowing at the altar of men that have raped thousands of boys.  Pedo Defender #1 is you the ultimate enabler.

This is the point where you start deleting posts, because your posting quantity and quality in this thread speaks for itself.  All of the pedo defenders shot off their mouths in defense, like you, and hate taking the rap.  You're still doing it by characterizing the initial incident as a "5 year old girl dancing".   Keep digging a deeper hole, Pedo Defender IV.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Gutterboy never heard of Bacha Bazi. You would think that a guy who is so concerned for the well being of children would have and at some point condemned it. 

He's another 82-IQ guy addicted to interwebs message boreds trying to flex a non-existent intellect, while thrashing about in the trap he constructed for himself.  Smart people would shut the fock up at this point.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

5 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

"Who is the bigger threat?" is a present-tense question.  I should think the Catholic Church has enough scrutiny on it right now.  I would imagine an institution filled with numerous individuals could pull off more misdeeds than a single person, though.  What was your point?

I don't think young girls dancing is anywhere close to the biggest threat.  The weird dude with the monkey dong was incredibly wrong but I'm not even sure that's close to being the biggest threat.  The biggest threat is having pedophiles working with kids in schools, sports and other organized activities.  Some organizations have a history of keeping quiet on instances and then moving that person onto another organization.  They don't want the negative publicity and figure it's someone else's problem now.  Things like this have happen in schools before.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

This is the point where you start deleting posts, because your posting quantity and quality in this thread speaks for itself.  All of the pedo defenders shot off their mouths in defense, like you, and hate taking the rap.  You're still doing it by characterizing the initial incident as a "5 year old girl dancing".   Keep digging a deeper hole, Pedo Defender IV.

He is definitely trying way to hard to cover up his issues. Best he bow out while he is behind. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

10 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

"Who is the bigger threat?" is a present-tense question.  I should think the Catholic Church has enough scrutiny on it right now.  I would imagine an institution filled with numerous individuals could pull off more misdeeds than a single person, though.  What was your point?

The catholic church has been abused children for 2000 years, it hasn't stopped, open your eyes.

My point is you defend the catholic church, yet say that one guy dressed like a monkey is a bigger threat to kids than a historic pattern of abuse.  You are a pedo defender, and your fake outrage towards monkey guy is virtue signaling.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Gutterboy never heard of Bacha Bazi. You would think that a guy who is so concerned for the well being of children would have and at some point condemned it. 

Yeah why wasn;t this brought up after monkey man?  Huh hardcore pedo?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

6 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

He's another 82-IQ guy addicted to interwebs message boreds trying to flex a non-existent intellect, while thrashing about in the trap he constructed for himself.  Smart people would shut the fock up at this point.

Casual pedo trying to silence people that expose him for what he is.  Classic.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't think young girls dancing is anywhere close to the biggest threat.  The weird dude with the monkey dong was incredibly wrong but I'm not even sure that's close to being the biggest threat.  The biggest threat is having pedophiles working with kids in schools, sports and other organized activities.  Some organizations have a history of keeping quiet on instances and then moving that person onto another organization.  They don't want the negative publicity and figure it's someone else's problem now.  Things like this have happen in schools before.

The Alt right ignores all this, and yet focuses on the dumb stuff to virtue signal to the world how they are the "protector of children"

[Casual Observer 597]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

The catholic church has been abused children for 2000 years, it hasn't stopped, open your eyes.

My point is you defend the catholic church, yet say that one guy dressed like a monkey is a bigger threat to kids than a historic pattern of abuse.  You are a pedo defender, and your fake outrage towards monkey guy is virtue signaling.

No one has denied the catholic Church's abuses and I haven't defended them.  For 2,000 years?  You're the world's greatest historian.  You brought in the Catholic Church as a deflection, ironically, to your own defense of pedos.   Fail all around for you.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

15 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

He's another 82-IQ guy addicted to interwebs message boreds trying to flex a non-existent intellect, while thrashing about in the trap he constructed for himself.  Smart people would shut the fock up at this point.

True. He seethes of “ I’m smarter than you, the TV told me so”.  But the really disgusting thing I find about him is his willingness to use the suffering of children to make a political point.  He only points the pedophile charge towards his political adversaries, when every intelligent, knowledgeable person knows it’s  a problem everywhere. It’s disgusting and he ought to feel shame and reevaluate how low he has gone with his ideology. Using the suffering of kids to make a political point. Tragic. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

True. He seethes of “ I’m smarter than you, the TV told me so”.  But the really disgusting thing I find about him is his willingness to use the suffering of children to make a political point.  He only points the pedophile charge towards his political adversaries, when every intelligent, knowledgeable person knows it’s  a problem everywhere. It’s disgusting and he ought to feel shame and reevaluate how low he has gone with his ideology. Using the suffering of kids to make a political point. Tragic. 

[Casual Observer 597]

8 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Casual pedo trying to silence people that expose him for what he is.  Classic.

I'm not doing a good job of silencing you, since you keep saying stupid things.  Bizarre fantasy land you live in, shorty.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Just seemed like a dumb post.  It's not a partisan issue yet some like to act like it is.  That's all.

To you it's dumb because it went over your head.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue but it's becoming one.  Liberals have been inching closer and closer every year to normalizing the sexualization of kids.  Even in schools, teaching kids about sex at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade levels is not acceptable, but it's going on in big/liberal monopolized cities.  The younger you accept kids being sexual, the lower the age of consent can be argued.  There's a lot of states that still have the age of consent at 18, surprisingly, California is one of them.  Though, most states are under 18... NJ is 16.  But you have states like NJ, who allows 13 year olds to have consensual sex with 17 year olds.  While CA does have their age of consent at 18, people having sex with minors between the ages of 14 to 17 that are not more than 10 years older than said minor may not be considered as sex offender.  So, a 23 year old guy could have sex with a 14 year old girl, and not be considered as a sex offender.  In my opinion, THIS is NOT ok.  Now, the funny thing is that law was only applied to older men having sex with young girls.  They're looking allow that age discrepancy for men with young boys.  That should raise some concern.  Why not just decrease the age gap between men and girls to meet the standards of men and boys?  Why increase it?  Interestingly enough, that law does not apply at all to women with young boys.  

The more you sexualize children, the more acceptable it could become in society to have sex at a younger age.  The younger people are who are having sex, like California, the older people can be to have sex with them.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

To you it's dumb because it went over your head.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue but it's becoming one.  Liberals have been inching closer and closer every year to normalizing the sexualization of kids.  Even in schools, teaching kids about sex at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade levels is not acceptable, but it's going on in big/liberal monopolized cities.  The younger you accept kids being sexual, the lower the age of consent can be argued.  There's a lot of states that still have the age of consent at 18, surprisingly, California is one of them.  Though, most states are under 18... NJ is 16.  But you have states like NJ, who allows 13 year olds to have consensual sex with 17 year olds.  While CA does have their age of consent at 18, people having sex with minors between the ages of 14 to 17 that are not more than 10 years older than said minor may not be considered as sex offender.  So, a 23 year old guy could have sex with a 14 year old girl, and not be considered as a sex offender.  In my opinion, THIS is NOT ok.  Now, the funny thing is that law was only applied to older men having sex with young girls.  They're looking allow that age discrepancy for men with young boys.  That should raise some concern.  Why not just decrease the age gap between men and girls to meet the standards of men and boys?  Why increase it?  Interestingly enough, that law does not apply at all to women with young boys.  

The more you sexualize children, the more acceptable it could become in society to have sex at a younger age.  The younger people are who are having sex, like California, the older people can be to have sex with them.

People have been having sex at the age of 14 forever.  Hormones are going crazy then.  There's not a whole lot that's going to stop that but they can be taught how to be safe.

The 10 year age gap is one thing that I agree with you on.  A 24 year old with a 14 year old is wrong.  I think 4 years is more than enough for an age gap.  Who here wasn't trying to get lied while in high school?

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

People have been having sex at the age of 14 forever.  Hormones are going crazy then.  There's not a whole lot that's going to stop that but they can be taught how to be safe.

The 10 year age gap is one thing that I agree with you on.  A 24 year old with a 14 year old is wrong.  I think 4 years is more than enough for an age gap.  Who here wasn't trying to get lied while in high school?

Sure, I have no problems with people of similar age having sex.  Yeah, the younger ones should be discouraged because of the consequences, but I'd rather hear about two 14 year old's going at it than a 24 and 14 year old going at it.  California is normalizing that by not putting child sex offender tags on those people.  That's part of "inching closer to normalizing pedophilia".  In the tweet/article I quoted your response on, as well as some of our resident liberals (who choose not to address it), it simply said the GOP worker was found guilty of child pornography and alike... but it didn't say anything about any GOP elected official backing him, justifying him, or trying to help him.  Meaning, the party is encouraging punishment... not condoning/supporting his actions, like some of our liberal friends purport.

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Sure, I have no problems with people of similar age having sex.  Yeah, the younger ones should be discouraged because of the consequences, but I'd rather hear about two 14 year old's going at it than a 24 and 14 year old going at it.  California is normalizing that by not putting child sex offender tags on those people.  That's part of "inching closer to normalizing pedophilia".  In the tweet/article I quoted your response on, as well as some of our resident liberals (who choose not to address it), it simply said the GOP worker was found guilty of child pornography and alike... but it didn't say anything about any GOP elected official backing him, justifying him, or trying to help him.  Meaning, the party is encouraging punishment... not condoning/supporting his actions, like some of our liberal friends purport.

I agree with the age gap at that age but I still do not qualify it as pedophilia. Generally pedophilia deals with an adult having sexual attraction to a child, 13 or younger.  While a 14 year old is still pretty young they don't really fall into that category of pedophilia.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I agree with the age gap at that age but I still do not qualify it as pedophilia. Generally pedophilia deals with an adult having sexual attraction to a child, 13 or younger.  While a 14 year old is still pretty young they don't really fall into that category of pedophilia.

Why 13?  Neither 13, 14, or 15 year olds have finished puberty.  Why the arbitrary age at 13?  Who's to say that in 10 years, people won't be ok with dropping the "arbitrary" age of 14 down to 13... then 12?

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Why 13?  Neither 13, 14, or 15 year olds have finished puberty.  Why the arbitrary age at 13?  Who's to say that in 10 years, people won't be ok with dropping the "arbitrary" age of 14 down to 13... then 12?

I don't know.  That's just what I read.  I'm sure it's different according to different studies.  My own opinion of what pedophilia is has always been that it's an adult that has a sexual fixation on anyone that is a preteen.  

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

Pedophilia is typically defined as being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child (13 or younger, depending on their own maturity and puberty). 

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

Pedophilia is typically defined as being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child (13 or younger, depending on their own maturity and puberty). 

That's how I interpret it.  I would also add that they are not only attracted to a single child but to children in general.  It's a sickness.

[DonS 3,067]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's how I interpret it.  I would also add that they are not only attracted to a single child but to children in general.  It's a sickness.

You** (child)focker get up come on get down with the sickness

**not "you" as in Hawkeye21

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

9 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Pedophilia is typically defined as being sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child (13 or younger, depending on their own maturity and puberty). 

 

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's how I interpret it.  I would also add that they are not only attracted to a single child but to children in general.  It's a sickness.

But again, that's an arbitrary number.  Girls start puberty at age 9, boys 11.  Those are the "prepubescent" ages.  Why is 13 the number?  Why not 8?  If that's the case, why not have California (and everyone else by proxy), lower their age down to 9 instead of 14? 

My nephew is 13.  He has friends in the age bracket of 11 to 15.  Among the girls, there are a few 11 year olds who look 20... there are a few 15 year olds who look 9.  Of course, I'm not condoning it, I'm simply pointing out that when you have an arbitrary number, an argument can be made to move it.  The younger kids are when you normalize their sexuality, the closer you get to accepting lower the "arbitrary" age.

I agree with the "sickness" part.  But haven't liberals already started on normalizing sicknesses?  "Gender dysphoria" is a sickness... and it's "ok".

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

 

But again, that's an arbitrary number.  Girls start puberty at age 9, boys 11.  Those are the "prepubescent" ages.  Why is 13 the number?  Why not 8?  If that's the case, why not have California (and everyone else by proxy), lower their age down to 9 instead of 14? 

My nephew is 13.  He has friends in the age bracket of 11 to 15.  Among the girls, there are a few 11 year olds who look 20... there are a few 15 year olds who look 9.  Of course, I'm not condoning it, I'm simply pointing out that when you have an arbitrary number, an argument can be made to move it.  The younger kids are when you normalize their sexuality, the closer you get to accepting lower the "arbitrary" age.

I honestly don't know but there needs to be some kind of number to go by, doesn't there?  Also, at what age is it too old to have relations with a 14 year old?  An 18 year old going out with a 14 year old is basically a senior dating a freshman.  Once it's a 19 year old with a 14 year old it starts to sound a lot more cringe.  How do we decide?  People all age differently, mentally and physically.