Lmao, 21st century leftists are literal 70 IQ drooling retards. >It's all just a fascist insurgency to turn the USA into a theocratic oligarchy. The fuck is this word diarrhea? None of this makes sense, you troglodytes have been screeching that everyone not on board with communism/anarchism/whatever is a big no-no evil fascist bully who wants a religious dictatorship for almost 100 years now and neither the world nor the USA is any close to that. >They said facist, not Nazi. You tards can't even spell fascist correctly yet claim to be Antifa freedom fighters who know that the way to go is anarchism and everybody who doesn't agree is an uneducated peasant. I thought it was just MuchBirth being this retarded, but turns out his entire side of the political aisle is made of imbeciles and spazzes. >I still don't like the guy whatsoever, but I don't think he's *quite* into fascist territory. >Problem is, he doesn't speak out nearly enough against the actual fascists that claim to share his views. "You breath air? So did Hitler" energy. A shitload of postmodernist thinkers and New Left ideologues insisted that there's nothing wrong with incest and pedophilia, you need to have sex with children or at least show them porn or else they become fascist and a number of them did touch and fuck kids. When will you denounce pedos on your side, lefties? My guess is never, and you'll wheel out "but le Catholic clergy and conservative politicians diddle kids too, that means my side can diddle them too, it's not a problem". Why are left-wingers such retards and lunatics?

>>3838 I know this is almost definitely fucking bait, but screw it. What kind of absolute fucking retard sees someone say "he honestly should probably tell the people misappropriating his views to push literal insanity that, no, that's not what he actually means" and thinks to themselves, "gee, this person must support fucking pedophiles"? How the fuck have you managed to shove your head so far up your ass that you genuinely believe pedophilia is somehow a fucking partisan issue? The absolute furthest the debate goes is regarding whether it's a fucking treatable mental illness and the like. Anybody who genuinely tries to claim that it's perfectly fine to fuck children is equally reviled by both sides. The only reason anyone on the left brings up the priest bullshit is because it's a legitimate widely-known problem that has actively been covered up and swept under the rug by the church for fucking AGES, and yet the right, rather than actually fucking take a stand and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, goes and throws a fit about the gays or trans people.

>>3843 >The only reason anyone on the left brings up the priest bullshit is because it's a legitimate widely-known problem It's literally less of a problem then the amount of teachers that tounch kids. Hell even if you take in consideration per capita rates Teachers are twice as likley to touch kids than priests yet it never gets brought up as a concern when it equally was covered up for years.

>>3838 >shoutingwithhimself

>>3800 only someone who's politically illiterate actually thinks its an oxymoron. Who do you think even coined the term "libertarianism" in the first place? Ill give you a hint, it wasn't someone on the right

>>3844 >>implying that highlighting a specific case means you suddenly don't give a shit about every other case While it doesn't generally make national news except in very rare cases, when a teacher gets caught diddling kids, it's a huge fucking deal at least at the local level. The problem people have with the church shit is that they'll somehow fucking turn it all around on the fucking victim, because it makes SO much sense that the little altar boy fucking seduced some decrepit old bastard. These are people that claim to be the messengers of God. By all accounts, the particularly religious should be even more furious that someone would do something so horrible while acting as a holy man. But instead, you resort to what-about-ism and try to make fucking pedophilia a fucking partisan issue. It's absolute insanity.

>>3843 Half of Shitter thinks age of consent laws were created by homophobic Nazis. The half who's bios say "ACAB|BLM|Socialism now|Death to Nazis". And for past 30 years at least, whenever news about pedos pop up, everyone says "Must be the Catholics again" even if it's a random criminal diddler off the street. >>3845 So where's your argument to vote for libertarian left? >>3848 Teachers diddling kids don't make the news often because liberals in all the newspapers, networks and blogs ignore it, downplay it or scream "Muh Christian pedos". There are more than enough news about teachers facing zero to no punishment after abusing kids and just quietly transfering to another school. And the right is doing something to put a stop to it. The pedo clergy aren't covered for like they used to be just 20-30 years ago. Meanwhile, the left does nothing about sexual abuse of kids in schools or gay community. Except, again, ignoring, downplaying it, shifting the blame or bringing "But muh Church does it too and no-one gets mad, why are you mad at teachers/gays doing it?"

>>3871 Your entire fucking argument literally boils down to "b-buh my side doesn't do it as much as the libtards". Stop trying to make it a partisan issue, everyone hates fucking pedophiles. And actually listening to the retards on Twitter as if they legitimately represent anybody is your own damn fault. Also, learn to sage, you fucking mongoloid.

>>3882 The lefties in this thread are the ones insisting that their side is clean and whenever somebody rapes kids it must be clergy. Also if both sides hated pedos the internet wouldn't be chock full of leftists claiming that age of consent laws are homophobic and racist. And you're very optimistic if you think this type of retards is only prevalent on Twitter.

>>3883 >thinks that lunatics on the internet actually represent the views of the majority of left-leaning people Another mark for you on the retard checklist, good job! Also, again, learn to fucking sage, shit-for-brains.

>>3884 California pushed a bill through to make it so individuals that engaged in anal sex with minors weren't immediately put onto the sex offenders registry. The reason literally because they believed the current registry targeted Homosexuals. Let that sink in, a liberal ran government not just some random discord pedos, cared more about not offending a group of people than it did the children they raped.

>young adults >within 10 years of their age Considering the existence of so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws in MANY states, no, this actually does do exactly what they set out to do in making sure it doesn't unfairly target gay people. The law prior left it up to a judge in cases where it *wasn't* anal. This literally just puts them on the same footing. The fact that you genuinely think "oh, this means gay people can rape kids without repercussions" shows just how much of a retard you are. This is basically only relevant to cases where an 18 year-old fucks their 17 year-old girlfriend or boyfriend and the like. The judge still has full power to put them on the registry if they so choose, it's just not an automatic placement. It took literally 5 minutes of research and basic reading comprehension to figure that out, so where does that leave you, fuckhead? Also, sage your fucking retardation already.

>>3887 >Unironically defending a law that makes it legal for an 18 year old to fuck a 10 year old without any repercussions Holy shit and you're the one calling people retarded. Way to fucking play the stereotype of a pedo defending liberal without any sort of question.

>>3888 That bill didn't make it legal, and it only applies to minors aged 14 through 17 years old. It gave judges discretion on whether to order the convicted to register as a sex offender. Stop trolling with bad faith arguments and actually read what you post.

>>3889 Precisely what this anon said; it's still illegal, and there are repercussions. They're just no longer automatically placing someone on the registry for doing the exact same thing in a different hole. Seriously, takes like 5 minutes of research. Not calling you a retard without a reason here; you've been providing plenty of evidence to prove that status.

>>3885 I see you kept this screencap from over three years ago, probably toss it in frequently to "spruce up" your vacuous arguments.

>>3889 >>3890 >Still ignoring that 10 year age gap It's really telling how defensive you guys are of a law that is fine with 17 year olds fucking 7 year olds. Like are we really going to ignore that a 10 year gap is unnecessarily large for the purposes of this law or are we still gonna gaslight like this isn't an issue?

>>3892 It literally does not work that way. The youngest it applies to is a 14 year old. So, 24 year-old and 14 year-old. It doesn't go younger than that. I personally agree that 10 years is probably a bit excessive, but the fact is that previously, you would automatically end up on the registry if you got a handjob, blowjob, or did anal, but that wasn't true for vaginal. Now, none of them automatically put you on the registry. It was a fucking bizarre distinction that made no sense and happened to disproportionately affect people who weren't straight.

>>3893 >24 year-old and 14 year-old >probably a bit excessive Yeah, just a tiny bit, hypothetically. Perhaps 24 and 14.05 years old would have been perfect.

>>3897 First, thanks for finally fucking saging this shit. Second, you are completely ignoring the fact that, since it's up to the judge's discretion, barring absolutely ridiculous circumstances, in actual practice this will only really be relevant in cases where the age gap is small. Also, *real* mature of you to take the first point on which we genuinely agreed to some extent, and still attempt to twist it in the most retarded way possible. But seriously, in practice it's extremely unlikely that cases closer to the 10-year end of the gap won't still be required to register. From what I can find, the previous equivalent of the law actually had the same 10-year span, so literally all that's changed is the aspect about vaginal versus oral and anal. It's just that that law has been on the books for literal decades, and as a result, when they tried to change it at all, people went fucking mental over the age gap because they thought it was something new.

>>3884 "Oh my fucking God, why is everyone on the right such a bigot?! Just look at all the chans and forums, why can't the world just outlaw everyone to the right of socialists? No, these retards on Twitter don't represent left-wing views, that's not a valid example." >>3887 So it's a case where pedophilia is okay because it's not straights doing it? >>3891 The bill has been passed into law and it's been 3 years since it started to be applied. It still counts as an argument. >>3893 So did gay people look for younger partners which caused this law to come into existence? Let me guess, it's not pedophilia when gays do it, correct? >>3898 So why not put vaginal sex in that law too? Because it would hit the wrong kind of pedos?

>>3898 Yeah, I'm this guy >>3884 >>3890 because there's no way two whole people could ever disagree with you. No sage for you.

>>3903 ...Motherfucker, what do you not goddamn comprehend about "this is really only actually relevant in cases with like a very small age gap"? Do you seriously believe that someone should be registered as a sex offender for their entire life simply because they fucked their junior-year girlfriend or boyfriend in their senior year of high school? Or hell, they could both be in senior year but have birthdays a few months apart. Are you actually that fucking retarded? Literally the only thing that was changed from the law that *was already on the fucking books for decades* is that it no longer singles out anal and oral as inherently worse for some fucking arbitrary reason.

>>3904 God forbid I assume that a new post in a similar tone to earlier ones is the same person.

>>3905 Do you seriously believe that someone should be registered as a sex offender for their entire life simply because they fucked their junior-year girlfriend or boyfriend in their senior year of high school? Or hell, they could both be in senior year but have birthdays a few months apart. Are you actually that fucking retarded? Do we need a law that allows for up to ten years for that?

>>3911 I have expressed *repeatedly* that I fucking agree that the 10 years is pretty extreme. I genuinely don't understand why the fuck you keep trying to argue it when we're in agreement on it. Playing devil's advocate, I can on some level understand the reluctance to automatically label someone a sex offender for easily over half their life just because they got shitfaced at a party and banged a similarly shitfaced minor or the like. Cases like that are obviously exceedingly rare, but that's why it's left up to the judge. The judge can absolutely still have them registered, it's just not automatic. I don't think it's that insane to have judges make that decision on a case by case basis. But even beyond all that, I think 10 years is arguably too much. Something closer to 5 years feels better, but I don't know enough about how common certain age gaps are to feel particularly comfortable giving a hard answer on that. I'd have to see numbers on how often cases like that come up and the like.

>>3912 Sounds like you like to fuck kids, you fucking pedo, GAS THE FUCKING PEDOS, YOU FAGGOTS HAVE NO RIGHTS.

>>3913 Damn bro we could turn you towards the wall and watch a movie off of you with how hard you're projecting right now.

>>3914 So you think gassing the pedos is too much or are you just a faggot who loves to fuck kids. Which is it, faggot?

>>3915 Acknowledging that people can make a fucking drunken mistake, or the fact that highschoolers are horny and make stupid decisions, does not in any way mean I want to fuck kids, you lunatic. Hell, my first girlfriend was roughly a year younger than me; had that relationship occured when we were in high school rather than towards the end of my time in middle school, I could have been one bad decision away from being in that exact kind of situation. It's REALLY not hard to think about the reasoning here unless you're truly fucking retarded.

>>3916 lol someone is mad.

>>3916 Just give up and stop responding. They're either a dedicated troll or brain damaged.

This whole thread just serves to remind me how all of us using this site would be better off not having children, unlike the actual fucking theme of this entire site

>>3923 lol talking to yourself now?

>>3932 maybe stop being a faggot then?

>>3978 Literally some of the worst baiting attempts ever lmao

>>3905 >>3911 >>3912 >>3916 So you insist that someone who sexed a teen shouldn't be labeled a pedo and a sex offender because it is mostly gays having sex with teens. Liking them young is just part of their culture, amirite or amirite fellas?

>>3991 You want an argument, you're gonna have to actually put effort in lmao

How do retards in this thread simultaneously think they're dauntless commie revolutionaries fighting le big bad Nazis but also that everybody who doesn't agree with them is simply baiting and deep down they agree with the commies?

>>3991 You're not right...

>>4031 Because these retards are usually masters in napkin politics and only ever get their political information from news articles and posts on Twitter/4Chin/Facebook.

>>4031 >>4033 Because there's a difference between putting together an actual argument for your views and going "hurr durr all da gaes are pedos". If the core of your argument is literally an insult, and a shitty one at that, then you're clearly not up for a legitimate discussion, you're probably just trying to stir up shit. And you don't have to be a fucking Twitter lunatic to think "hey, maybe we shouldn't fuck people over for being gay". I grew up in a very politically divided household; I had to come to my own conclusions on all of this shit, making sure I wasn't just parroting whatever my parents believed. In this instance, the simple fact is this: if you had two otherwise identical cases, one where the coupling was straight and the sex was vaginal, and one where the coupling was gay and thus the sex was anal, the old law would have by default punished the gay person more severely. It by definition discriminated against gay sex. It's *really* not that hard to comprehend that that's pretty goddamn stupid and arbitrary.

>>4062 >ignores that the law harmed men and women engaing in anal sex as well >ignores the law was most likely a hold over of anti sodomy laws >still actively defending the new law that still has a 10 year discrepancy when 4 was more than enough Dude we get it, you like fucking underage boys

>>4065 doing that 2+2=6 type shit

>>4065 >still actively defending the new law that still has a 10 year discrepancy when 4 was more than enough I invite you to read through >>3912 The stupidest thing about this bullshit is that, from what you just argued, I'm fairly confident that we actually have nearly the exact same fucking opinion, but you're fucking pulling such insane mental gymnastics to find an adversary that you're failing to see that fact.

"There are cases of 20 year olds fucking 17 year olds, so that means not everyone who fucks kids is a pedo sex offender, now abolish the laws and the sex offender registry or you hate gays or something."

>>4103 It's still illegal, for fuck's sake. Literally all this changed from the law that was already on the fucking books is that it no longer singles out non-vaginal sex as being inherently worse. That's THE ONLY FUCKING DIFFERENCE.