Canceled Netflix today----- Cuties show is wrong

ProV1

Well-known member
How bout instead of extending the law tear it up and try again? You think 24 year olds should be having sex with HS freshmen?
No...that is rape and the law reflects that. Under that California law the 24 year old would be charged. Every state in the country has these laws. What are you confused about?
 

ProV1

Well-known member
I gave you a thumbs up. I don't understand you. Do have anything up there except I hate Trump?
Well I certainly hate Trump but I also have an affinity for truth and fact which is why I post on a subject like this. Loons make ridiculous claims, distortions, and lies and they need to be corrected. I know you don't appreciate it because many on this board don't care if they look stupid, but I'm a pretty charitable guy.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
Well I certainly hate Trump but I also have an affinity for truth and fact which is why I post on a subject like this. Loons make ridiculous claims, distortions, and lies and they need to be corrected. I know you don't appreciate it because many on this board don't care if they look stupid, but I'm a pretty charitable guy.
😂
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
Well I certainly hate Trump but I also have an affinity for truth and fact which is why I post on a subject like this. Loons make ridiculous claims, distortions, and lies and they need to be corrected. I know you don't appreciate it because many on this board don't care if they look stupid, but I'm a pretty charitable guy.
Hate is such a strong word. Do you think that hate might have you distorted? Could you be to the emotional state of distortion? That's a serious question and not meant in a bad way.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Hate is such a strong word. Do you think that hate might have you distorted? Could you be to the emotional state of distortion? That's a serious question and not meant in a bad way.
No. I'm not really an emotional type. Far more of a logical thinker. I do think Trump is totally immoral, but that does not drive my disdain for him. I loathe the guy because he is demonstrably and proven to be fraudulent, dishonest., and unlawful. Time will also prove him to be even more unlawful. There is not a political view on earth that would allow me to support such a human being.
 

chs1971

Well-known member
No. I'm not really an emotional type. Far more of a logical thinker. I do think Trump is totally immoral, but that does not drive my disdain for him. I loathe the guy because he is demonstrably and proven to be fraudulent, dishonest., and unlawful. Time will also prove him to be even more unlawful. There is not a political view on earth that would allow me to support such a human being.
In 48 days I get to vote for Trump again.

I am more educated and wiser than you though, so there's that.

You and Jared agree about Cuties though. At least you are in good company there.
 

y2h

Well-known member
No...that is rape and the law reflects that. Under that California law the 24 year old would be charged. Every state in the country has these laws. What are you confused about?
no it doesnt. age of consent 14 if the partner is no more than 10 years older. so a 24 year old can bang a 14 year old consensually.
 

zeeman

Well-known member
No. I'm not really an emotional type. Far more of a logical thinker. I do think Trump is totally immoral, but that does not drive my disdain for him. I loathe the guy because he is demonstrably and proven to be fraudulent, dishonest., and unlawful. Time will also prove him to be even more unlawful. There is not a political view on earth that would allow me to support such a human being.
Sounds pretty emotional 😂
 

ProV1

Well-known member
no it doesnt. age of consent 14 if the partner is no more than 10 years older. so a 24 year old can bang a 14 year old consensually.
Man you are stupid. The age of consent in California is 18 years old. That means their is no legal way to consent as a 14 year old. Sex with a 14 year old at any age is against the law.

This is why it is impossible to have a logical and fact based conversation with member of the Cult. Like Trump, they make up their own realty and completely ignore the real world.
 

y2h

Well-known member
Man you are stupid. The age of consent in California is 18 years old. That means their is no legal way to consent as a 14 year old. Sex with a 14 year old at any age is against the law.

This is why it is impossible to have a logical and fact based conversation with member of the Cult. Like Trump, they make up their own realty and completely ignore the real world.
They just changed the law to say if a 24 year old is engaged in oral or anal sex with a 14 year old consensually they wont end up on the sex offender list. So yes they lowered the punishment for having sex with minors.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
They just changed the law to say if a 24 year old is engaged in oral or anal sex with a 14 year old consensually they wont end up on the sex offender list. So yes they lowered the punishment for having sex with minors.
So you went and figured out that I was right and am trying to back track. Got it. That said, you are wrong again. The law change does not determine that the offender in your scenario will not end up on the sex offender list. That person could very well end up on the list. It just means that the judge has the discretion not to put the offender on the list based on the type of sex act. Under the previous law, the judge had the discretion to keep the offender off the list if it was intercourse, but no discretion for oral sex. That makes zero sense.

You kooks like to focus on the extreme scenarios that rarely if ever happen....like getting an abortion a day before child birth. It is a stupid and a simpleton view. Statutory laws apply far more to scenarios like a high school senior having sex with a sophomore. Normal people would never advocate for a kid going on the sex offender list because he got a BJ but the kid that had intercourse gets to avoid it. It is common sense and a shame that you don't have any. BTW....you should be happy California has a 10 year statute. There are other states that don't even consider proximity of age which would allow statutory laws to apply to a 40 year old. You totally whiffed again.
 

y2h

Well-known member
So you went and figured out that I was right and am trying to back track. Got it. That said, you are wrong again. The law change does not determine that the offender in your scenario will not end up on the sex offender list. That person could very well end up on the list. It just means that the judge has the discretion not to put the offender on the list based on the type of sex act. Under the previous law, the judge had the discretion to keep the offender off the list if it was intercourse, but no discretion for oral sex. That makes zero sense.

You kooks like to focus on the extreme scenarios that rarely if ever happen....like getting an abortion a day before child birth. It is a stupid and a simpleton view. Statutory laws apply far more to scenarios like a high school senior having sex with a sophomore. Normal people would never advocate for a kid going on the sex offender list because he got a BJ but the kid that had intercourse gets to avoid it. It is common sense and a shame that you don't have any. BTW....you should be happy California has a 10 year statute. There are other states that don't even consider proximity of age which would allow statutory laws to apply to a 40 year old. You totally whiffed again.
You totally whiffed. At least you finally admit they allow a 10 year gap...who thinks that is sensible? Normal people would never advocate for that. Instead of expanding the law they shouldve rewritten it with a much shorter window. No one cares about a 18/19 year old and 17 year old. There is no reason to give 24 year olds protection for intercourse with children. Its "equality" to abuse children. Then again you think Cuties is great family viewing so...
 

ProV1

Well-known member
It takes 3 things things:

1. A desire to know fact and truth.
2. A computer to use google.
3. The ability to read and comprehend.

If you have those three things and 5 minutes, you could stop making a fool of yourself, as well.
 

jmog

Well-known member
Well I certainly hate Trump but I also have an affinity for truth and fact which is why I post on a subject like this. Loons make ridiculous claims, distortions, and lies and they need to be corrected. I know you don't appreciate it because many on this board don't care if they look stupid, but I'm a pretty charitable guy.
Your actual posts on this thread debunk your claim that you have an affinity for truth.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
You totally whiffed. At least you finally admit they allow a 10 year gap...who thinks that is sensible? Normal people would never advocate for that. Instead of expanding the law they shouldve rewritten it with a much shorter window. No one cares about a 18/19 year old and 17 year old. There is no reason to give 24 year olds protection for intercourse with children. Its "equality" to abuse children. Then again you think Cuties is great family viewing so...
I never said they don't have a 10 year age proximity for statutory laws to apply. Maybe you don't understand how laws are made, but Newsome can not rewrite the law. The legislature does those things. Further, people do care about equal application of these laws for 15-19 year olds because that is where they apply the most. Under the old law, a 17 year old would be put on the sex offender list for a BJ but would not for intercourse. Anybody that arguers that the law should not be changed is an imbecile. Finally, you keep saying that the law protects 24 year olds. It does not. Sex with anybody under 18 is against tha law. It would be fully prosecuted and the offender would in all likelihood be placed on the sex offender list based on the facts of the case.

Why are you even criticizing it? MANY STATES DON'T EVEN HAVE AN AGE PROXIMITY STATUTE! Go start a thread calling out the states that don't have it and allow even more discretion.
 

MentorGrad2002

Well-known member
So you went and figured out that I was right and am trying to back track. Got it. That said, you are wrong again. The law change does not determine that the offender in your scenario will not end up on the sex offender list. That person could very well end up on the list. It just means that the judge has the discretion not to put the offender on the list based on the type of sex act. Under the previous law, the judge had the discretion to keep the offender off the list if it was intercourse, but no discretion for oral sex. That makes zero sense.

You kooks like to focus on the extreme scenarios that rarely if ever happen....like getting an abortion a day before child birth. It is a stupid and a simpleton view. Statutory laws apply far more to scenarios like a high school senior having sex with a sophomore. Normal people would never advocate for a kid going on the sex offender list because he got a BJ but the kid that had intercourse gets to avoid it. It is common sense and a shame that you don't have any. BTW....you should be happy California has a 10 year statute. There are other states that don't even consider proximity of age which would allow statutory laws to apply to a 40 year old. You totally whiffed again.
Common sense says you are pro choice if you advocate for other women to choose while not wanting .an abortion if it involves you

But you claim to be pro life while clearly not knowing what that means ...

Of course you will defend stuff like this and the netflix movie. I'm not surprised. It fits the liberal platform.where many want to normalize pedophiles and act like they should be a protected group
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Common sense says you are pro choice if you advocate for other women to choose while not wanting .an abortion if it involves you

But you claim to be pro life while clearly not knowing what that means ...

Of course you will defend stuff like this and the netflix movie. I'm not surprised. It fits the liberal platform.where many want to normalize pedophiles and act like they should be a protected group
I defend the change in this law because the old one made zero logical sense and unfairly differentiated penalty based on intercourse vs oral sex. The complaint about the 10 year rule is irrelevant to the change. It was already in the law and this did not change it. It simply equated sex acts. Nothing more or nothing less.

You can complain about the 10 year thing if you want but that actually protects children. Old creeps who commit statuary rape do not get the benefit of the judges discretion. You can try to argue that there should be no discretion at all and the statutory rape offenders should all go on the sex offender list, but then you are arguing that a 16 year old would automatically go on the list for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Do you know how many kids would have their lives ruined if charged teenagers were automatically stuck them on a rape list? The discretion law allows a judge to look at the facts of the case and decide if the list is warranted or not.

You people need to apply a sliver of common sense to your thinking before you post such stupid stuff.
 

MentorGrad2002

Well-known member
E
I defend the change in this law because the old one made zero logical sense and unfairly differentiated penalty based on intercourse vs oral sex. The complaint about the 10 year rule is irrelevant to the change. It was already in the law and this did not change it. It simply equated sex acts. Nothing more or nothing less.

You can complain about the 10 year thing if you want but that actually protects children. Old creeps who commit statuary rape do not get the benefit of the judges discretion. You can try to argue that there should be no discretion at all and the statutory rape offenders should all go on the sex offender list, but then you are arguing that a 16 year old would automatically go on the list for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Do you know how many kids would have their lives ruined if charged teenagers were automatically stuck them on a rape list? The discretion law allows a judge to look at the facts of the case and decide if the list is warranted or not.

You people need to apply a sliver of common sense to your thinking before you post such stupid stuff.
Can you show me where I said a 16 year old should go on the list for having sex with a 15 year old ? Both are minors anyways. I think a 2 year rule works with minors. 19 with 17 and 18 with 16 being legal makes sense to me

And you're still not pro life
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
It takes 3 things things:

1. A desire to know fact and truth.
2. A computer to use google.
3. The ability to read and comprehend.

If you have those three things and 5 minutes, you could stop making a fool of yourself, as well.
Number 2 ? Google gives you the information? Lyndon B Johnson history has been removed by Google. Many other events are censure or hidden. The algorithm of searches is fixed. Grab a book along with the internet. You have no clue about that President. It was not taught ot offered was it?
 

ProV1

Well-known member
E

Can you show me where I said a 16 year old should go on the list for having sex with a 15 year old ? Both are minors anyways. I think a 2 year rule works with minors. 19 with 17 and 18 with 16 being legal makes sense to me

And you're still not pro life
}

Arguing against the California law change means that you agree with a a mandatory assignment to the sex registry. You can’t have it both ways. You kooks don’t even understand what you are arguing for.
 

MentorGrad2002

Well-known member
}

Arguing against the California law change means that you agree with a a mandatory assignment to the sex registry. You can’t have it both ways. You kooks don’t even understand what you are arguing for.
Lol at calling others kooks when you claim to be pro life and don't even know what that stance means ...

No I just think it's very unsurprising that you would be on here for days defending a movie that's a pedophiles dream and a state policy that they'd love too. Dems have taken a stance that pedophiles should be a protected class and they sympathize with those monsters
 

Harrycrane

Well-known member
I watched it. I cancelled Netflix . I enjoy Netflix but I owe it to my family and myself to make a stand.
I’m sure the family will be proud of you and the heroic stand you are taking right after they are done thinking what a boob you are when they want to watch one of their regular Netflix features
 

ProV1

Well-known member
E

Can you show me where I said a 16 year old should go on the list for having sex with a 15 year old ? Both are minors anyways. I think a 2 year rule works with minors. 19 with 17 and 18 with 16 being legal makes sense to me

And you're still not pro life
I don’t know why you are even posting on this thread with your abortion BS. This law has nothing to do with abortion. Go preach somewhere else.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Number 2 ? Google gives you the information? Lyndon B Johnson history has been removed by Google. Many other events are censure or hidden. The algorithm of searches is fixed. Grab a book along with the internet. You have no clue about that President. It was not taught ot offered was it?
i Have no problem finding information on the internet. I am not interested in a Johnson but if I was, I could get whatever I needed. Go somewhere else with your whack job theories.
 
.
Top