/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

>>19374

every one? I hear there's one providence in japan that maintains the 13 AoC. I don't know if that's the only good thing about that area though. For all I know, it could be another shithole.

>>19353

Did you know that public urination at a school at night can make you a registered sex offender

>>19559

They might be toilet trained and know better, but I believe they wouldn't think such a minor 'prank' could fuck up their entire rest of life.

Condemning 8-year-olds pissing in public and having them register as sex offenders (!) for doing so are two completely different animals. The latter (having them register as sex offenders) is bullshit.

>>19374

> but every single prefecture in the country has a higher AoC

But we're not talking about AoC, are we? We're talking about shortcomings of the American system.

>>19383

> Mexico is a shithole

> Argentinia is also a shithole

Mexico is a 'less-developed country'. Please use terms more politically correct than 'shithole'. You can be polite even if you're talking about shitholes.

> Japan has censorship

That's true. Unfortunately, the Japanese love it, maybe because it leaves room for imagination.

> Srsly, there was some guy in Brazil who went mad and killed a child, so the locals took him out of the police station and beat his face until there was nothing left of it.

> Brazil

> killed a child

> got lynched

> USA

> shot a black citizen

> almost got lynched

>>19386

> you want to be able to have sex with girls that haven't even reached puberty?

That's what many pedos want, so what?

> low AOC indicates more cultural acceptance, not less

Depends. In most Muslim countries, AoC is low although sex (esp. before marriage) is accepted the least.

>>19387

> Why would you want to have someone underage who looks exactly like an adult

Girls don't start looking grown-up the moment they hit puberty.

>>19389

> I don't see much difference.

Why are you contradicting yourself?

>>19395

> I'm considering moving far, far away from the US in 5-10 years.

Good decision. Why not until in 5–10yrs?

>>19408

> Switzerland

> no EU

EU isn't that bad, except when they try to prescribe banana curvatures or something like that.

> Norway

> richest country on earth

Probably yes, but only because they produce their own oil. At least they have the best HDI on Earth.

> shit language

Why should Norwegian be more shitty than, e.g., English, German, or French? If you want to call a language shitty, take traditional Chinese (no offence to Taiwan intended), Hebrew (thousands of years old and still not wise), or Esperanto.

> Iceland

> nearly no niggers or Muslim trash

For the same reason you wouldn't like to live there yourself.

>>19423

> you could marry a loli in a Muslim country

But you can't get divorced once she isn't loli anymore.

> Ordinary everyday Muslims are good people.

Until they blow some satire office up.

>>19429

Being racist is not that bad. Except for those you hate because of that.

>>19432

Every other Muslim I have met had some kind of mental disorder. Not because he/she was Muslim, but there is definitely some correlation.

>>19556

You're 100% right.

>>19564

> Its more about the best country to get CP

No. AoC has literally nothing to do with CP. The according laws are usually clearly separated.

>>21183

There aren't any shitholes in Japan. Well, except for the climate; the north of Hokkaido is probably too cold, and the south of Okinawa too hot.

Japan is a very well developed country and society there is one of the most open-minded in the world.

>>21216

> public urination at a school at night

> public urination

> at a school

> at night

Even if I believed that 'public' urination at a school at night is possible I would frankly deny that anyone is stupid enough to urinate at a school at night.

>>21219

No, it's not. Eight year olds know better than to expose themselves in public.

>>21235

> Eight year olds know better than to expose themselves in public.

Yes. That doesn't mean registering them as sex offenders just because they do is justified.

A former teacher of mine once told our class a story about her giving lessons in a primary school class, sitting in a circle with the pupils. Then, suddenly, one stood up exposing his crotch. Of course, she was flabbergasted. As she described it, that boy was one of 'certain kids who don't know they shouldn't bare themselves in public', implying this is more common than we thought at that time. I have to admit I don't know how old said pupil was, but as this happened in primary school, the age cannot have been much different from 8.

TLDR: Some don't.

And I don't believe that boy had sexual intentions. Registering him as a sex offender would have been terribly overboard.

But maybe you think so too and are just one of these troll fags who always promote an opinion contrary to that of their interlocutor in order to annoy them?

>>21245

Then maybe it should be a case-by-case basis.

>>21247

That should be acceptable.

>>21247

>>21248

I can only laugh at this. Where i live no judge nor police officer would ever consider an 8yearold's actions sufficient for registering as a sex offender haha. And any politician who suggest such a stupid law would be thrown out office on ears!!

>When did the American justice system turn into a fucking Venus Flytrap?

When cunts (women) took it over.

I hope these 8yr olds grow to hate the state and overthrow it violently.

I hope many feminists are killed.

>>21260

> And so is the US.

> letting Jews irrecoverably harm their son's bodies with circumcision legally

> letting manic garage owners shoot 17-year-old exchange students legally

> letting rich criminals leave the country legally

> torturing innocent people off Cuba's shores legally

> bombing Islamic State into power in Irak

Well, sometimes it seems the only positive thing about the USA is that it's the oldest democracy on Earth that is still in place.

And while I'm not >>21220, I think what was meant by shitholes was regions, not people.

>>19427

there's white muslims, you know that right?

>>21220

>>19386

Also, Argentina is pretty much a develpped country.

>>But you can't get divorced once she isn't loli anymore.

under Shari'a law all he has to do is say "i divorce you" three times. Now, most Muslim countries have something more formal, even Saudi Arabia I think (i.e. seeing a sheik or other scholar for martial counseling I think)

>>Even if I believed that 'public' urination at a school at night is possible I would frankly deny that anyone is stupid enough to urinate at a school at night.

You havent hung with drunk people coming from a bar or whatnot. There's parts of my city where that can easily happen, as the party scenes happen at night and afterwards they talk in a direction and there can always be a school in the direction. Note some people have set up patterns of pissing at the corner of houses so often that the acid in the piss eats away the mortar in the brocks.

>>21251

It was a flytrap before that though.

>>21322

> Argentina is pretty much a develpped country

But Argentina isn't listed officially as an 'industrial' or 'developed' nation, while Japan and the US are. Of course there are several somewhat highly (more or less) developed countries not in that list, e.g. China, South Korea, or Brazil.

> under Shari'a law all he has to do is say "i divorce you" three times

Ah, I think he confused that with what Catholic Christians believe.

> there can always be a school in the direction

> Note some people have set up patterns of pissing at the corner of houses so often that the acid in the piss eats away the mortar in the brocks.

I would also say that 'I would frankly deny that anyone is stupid enough to urinate at a school at night' is a bit too denying. Yet, whatever you do at a school at night shouldn't be public whatsoever.

>>21390

I don't know whether >>19383 falls in this category or is even American, but there are many US citizens who believe any country that's not the USA is a shithole.

>Note some people have set up patterns of pissing at the corner of houses so often that the acid in the piss eats away the mortar in the brocks.

If they did that to your house would you kill them or would you chop their genitals off?

Which would you do?

This is worst story that just broke my heart: I saw something on TV about an adolescent boy who was caught playing sexually with his sister. His own parents called the police on him and sent him to prison. When he finally got out they still didn't trust him and never even let him be in the same room with his sister. Now everyone thinks he's a disgusting incestuous child rapist and his life is ruined :(

>>21395

Not me. I'm an American and I acknowledge that there are other countries that have good things going for it like Japan, Switzerland, and Finland to name a few. Mexico is indeed a SHITHOLE! That's why I'm not trying to cross the border for the country's low AoC

>>21474

He got caught having sex with his sister. It's hardly slander to call him an incestuous child rapist.

>>21553

It would have been nice if >>21474 had presented references, but if he's talking about the one particular case I have in mind reading his post, the boy didn't 'have sex' with his sister, he'd just – accidentally, if I remember that correctly – touched her pussy. And even if he had had sex with his sister, while 'incestuous' isn't slander really 'rapist' would be; because it could have been what Urban Dictionary knows as 'wincest'. In addition, in the case I have in mind the boy wasn't just sent to prison but to a maximum security prison where every orifice of his body got scrutinized whenever he had had a visitor. Which I think would sound overboard even for an adult child rapist, let alone a child rapist who is a child himself.

>>21576

>And even if he had had sex with his sister, while 'incestuous' isn't slander really 'rapist' would be; because it could have been what Urban Dictionary knows as 'wincest'.

What…. the fuck…?

And you don't "accidentally" touch someones genitals. I would prefer a legitimate source, because you're not exactly a reliable narrator here.

>>21581

> What…. the fuck…?

The sex could have been consensual. While that doesn't make it less incestuous, it cannot be called rape then, as 'rape' and 'consensual' are mutually exclusive.

> And you don't "accidentally" touch someones genitals.

I don't really see why this shouldn't be possible between siblings. If you sleep in the same room, change clothes at the same time, mess around innocently while being naked, bathing together etc. …

> I would prefer a legitimate source, because you're not exactly a reliable narrator here.

And you make this judgement based on …?

The case I have in mind: Raoul Wüthrich, Golden, Colorado, August 30, 1999.

>>21586

Children cannot legally consent. We may not agree with the law but the law is still the law until it gets repealed, and until then it is simply not slander to call someone who is factually a rapist under the law, a rapist.

Sorry, urban dictionary does not trump the law.

>And you make this judgement based on …?

The fact that until your post just now this was nothing more than an anonymous poster vaguely talking about a thing he saw on tv.

The parts where you are lying about him being sent to a "maximum security prison" instead of a juvenile detention center also don't help your case. Not sure where you're getting this "every orifice of his body got scrutinized whenever he had had a visitor" from, either.

>>21590

> The parts where you are lying about him being sent to a "maximum security prison"

I was mistaken about that, sorry. I looked the facts up after I posted my description; what I wrote was indeed vaguely something I had read in the news.

> Not sure where you're getting this "every orifice of his body got scrutinized whenever he had had a visitor" from, either.

My source maybe won't help you much since they're not English, but of course that could mean they're not well-informed either.

> Children cannot legally consent.

I think that's the most wiredrawn argument one could bring in this case. You can ask a child whether he/she wants some candy and even if the answer doesn't count as consent according to the law you probably will as a person take it as consent if the answer is 'yes'. It's roughly the same with sex. An 11-year-old boy maybe doesn't know about the law's view on consent regarding his age, so he will most certainly regard as consent whatever his sister says or does that usually means she agrees with him.

> it is simply not slander to call someone who is factually a rapist under the law, a rapist

Well, as you could have read from my post, I went by the definition of 'rape', e.g. according to Wikipedia: 'Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent.' I didn't expect the nitpicking about 'legal' or other consent though. I still wouldn't call someone a rapist who hadn't any intention of doing something against his mate's will.

>>21598

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

>Children cannot legally consent.

As much as I like kids, this is actually a true statement. The key word is "legally"

>>21598

I'm not sure how you could mistakenly believe an 11 year old would be sent to a maximum security prison, or any sort of prison besides a juvenile detention center.

Next time don't write posts your butt can't cash.

>I think that's the most wiredrawn argument one could bring in this case.

What argument? There is no argument. Children cannot legally consent. If you disagree then try to get the law changed.

> I went by the definition of 'rape', e.g. according to Wikipedia

The part where you went wrong is using wikipedia instead of the law when we're discussing the legal concept of slander.

Maybe you wouldn't call someone a rapist, but as was already highlighted, what YOU call anything does not really matter here.

>>21613

> I'm not sure how you could mistakenly believe an 11 year old would be sent to a maximum security prison

I don't know whether you understand German, but http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5865/1.html wrote:

> Raoul Wüthrich […] wurde im Jugendgefängnis behandelt wie ein erwachsener Schwerverbrecher.

which roughly translates to

> Raoul Wüthrich […] was treated in juvenile detention center like an adult dangerous felon.

As I told you, I wrote what I remembered, not what actually was there (and I already told you I'm sorry about that), and what I remembered was the part about the 'adult dangerous felon'. In my humble grasp of life, dangerous felons are sent to maximum security prisons.

> Next time don't write posts your butt can't cash.

Next time don't use double negation if you don't mean it.

> What argument? There is no argument.

'The law says X, thus X is true' is an argument. Whether or not this is considered to be correct, don't forget it is an argument.

> Children cannot legally consent.

You already wrote this. No need to repeat yourself. I fully understood it the first time. True is what >>21601 wrote:

> The key word is "legally"

A key word I didn't use in the first place, if you remember correctly.

> If you disagree then try to get the law changed.

Fortunately, where I live this isn't necessary as children below the age of 14 (which happens to be also the age of consent) aren't criminally responsible, that is, a 11-year-old couldn't be arrested or charged for rape anyway. Also, nobody here talks about children 'consenting' (or 'not consenting') to anything (it's not really 'age of consent' but rather 'age of protection') – and they have limited consenting capabilities as young as 7yo –, 'child abuse' is not immediately considered 'child rape' (only if brute force or life threats are involved), and juvenile perpetrators aren't given punishments as hard as adults would be given (they try to educate them into not becoming delinquent again instead). In fact our legal system is much less insistent than the US one.

> The part where you went wrong is using wikipedia instead of the law when we're discussing the legal concept of slander.

No, the part where I went wrong is assuming slander is the same as insult, namely not in a legal sense.

> what YOU call anything does not really matter here

So when DOES matter what I call anything? You can always take the same 'the law says X, thus X is true' argument to explain away any logic I or someone else uses to justify their views. Why the heck are you even discussing with someone if you'll shoot down anyway everything that doesn't tightly meet the precise legal definitions, which are clear anyway. Then, there isn't anything left to discuss.

And please don't harp on me not accepting your laws or legal definitions. If you are OK with subordinating under them, that's not my fucking business. And as it's not my fucking business, don't instruct me to let it be my fucking business like

> If you disagree then try to get the law changed.

You can disagree with something without instantly trying to change a law. As you might not have known that I'm not a US citizen, you didn't do anything wrong answering that (or, did you? You couldn't presume it either), but why should I bother trying to get the US laws changed? That's the US citizens' job, if they cared.

>>21622

>No, the part where I went wrong is assuming slander is the same as insult, namely not in a legal sense.

Slander means false statement. If something can be true under any definition, it isn't false anymore.

>>21625

I already said I went wrong assuming a meaning of slander.

If this is just for clarification, thank you very much, sir.

>>21613

>What argument? There is no argument. Children cannot legally consent. If you disagree then try to get the law changed.

You're being obtuse. The law is one thing, the truth another. And I'm not even a serious pedophile either, it's just that in the context of this story taking the side of the system is so bootlickingly asinine I can only assume you're one of those faggots that trawls the internet for arguments.

>>21662

It is literally the truth that statutory rape laws exist and children cannot legally consent.

It may not be true that they can't consent in general, but laws are a part of reality that factually exist. That IS the truth.

I'm not taking the side of the system, I'm literally doing nothing more than telling you that the system exists, and your response is to cry about it.

>>21664

Yet it's also the truth that children usually don't know the law. Most grown-ups don't either, but at least they know that something like an age-of-consent or statutory rape law could exist and where to look it up. Children are totally oblivious to that. If you say an 11-year-old boy should be knowing that touching his sister's pussy is wrong, you're on dangerous ground (although you might still be right that an 11-year-old could at least be expected to know such laws might exist). If you say it's the right thing (as you implied in >>21553, besides the fact that you don't even know whether he was actually having sex with his sister or just playing doctor, which is considered to be normal) that his own parents, who should be concerned about what he feels about it all, sent him to prison and didn't trust him anymore, you basically say that childaren are actually required to not even know the law in detail but also need to have enough self-control (many children don't even at that age) to always remember and obey the law. That's why many countries have laws that prevent children from being prosecuted, that prevent people from being prosecuted for whom looking up the law wasn't possible or didn't give them enough clues to realize what they were doing is wrong, or both. The US obviously doesn't have any such laws, and that's the sole reason why so many heart-breaking stories like the one described by >>21474 are able to evolve there in the first place. If you're a parent and care about your children's well-being, don't let them grow up in the US, it's far too dangerous for them (also because of terrorism and so on).

>>21726

>Yet it's also the truth that children usually don't know the law. Most grown-ups don't either

And it's also the truth that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

>>21728

Exactly. That's why I explained in my post that many countries – those with a more sophisticated system of law, as I would say – have legal mechanisms to avoid this concept 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse' running riot destroying e.g. a child's life as happened in what >>21474 described. You seem to be that persuaded of the utmost superiority of such law principles that you don't see the bullshit they're able to produce. Well, in Europe they saw the bullshit and acted accordingly. And if America, that great country of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is also a great country of reason, they'll do the same. Where's the American spirit gone?

>>21752

Er, TLDR: It's also the truth that ignorance of the law can indeed sometimes be an excuse, if you happen to live in the right country.

>>21752

It was just juevie. It's not like he was being tried as an adult, something only done in murder cases. The entire justice system doesn't need to be reworked because some preteen couldn't keep it in his pants.

>>21220

> Japan is a very well developed country and society there is one of the most open-minded in the world.

Uwot? Japan is one of the most horribly xenophobic countries in the world. Good luck getting a job here unless you are Japanese or are degree'd out your nigger loving ass

>>21752

There are cases in the US where that can be used as an affirmative defense, like when there is no reasonable expectation for a person to know that it was a crime.

This just doesn't apply to sexual crimes, which are absolute liability. Some jury somewhere bought some babyfucker's argument that he thought she was 18. Things were said, laws were passed, making it an absolute liability crime where even if she shows you 3 forms of ID, if they are fake, you are still guilt. Passed under the expectation of politicians looking for easy 'tuff on crime' points that there would judicial and procecutor discretion. Then a few years later people are outraged because some idiot judge gave a child rapist a token sentence, and he killed when he got out. Megan's law gets passed and mandatory minimums are enacted that force how the judge rules (since the judicial branch checks the legislative and executive, they don't absolutely have to follow these, but in places where judges are elected, it would be political suicide, and appointed judges, like federal judges, are chosen for how little they rock the boat). Also, many of these laws are crafted to not have anything to do with the courts at all, stating "a person convicted of X crime must do Y after release).

Then there is the power-mad bureaucrats that get off on weilding the tiby bit of authority granted to them over everyone they can. And the prosecutors who live and die by conviction rate.

This is the real autism crisis. A nation of idiots who make obsessive rules and follow them even when they don't make sense.

>>21758

Japanese society is still one of the most open-minded in the world. E.g. the attitude of 'What you don't know won't hurt you' or the art of ignoring. That the Japanese are anxious about their society becoming polluted is partly because of that. But when talking to Japanese outside Japan you always notice that their xenophobia is restricted to their own country, like a person who's very open-minded about everything but wants to keep it outside their house. Comprehensible, I'd say.

>>21754

> The entire justice system doesn't need to be reworked because some preteen couldn't keep it in his pants.

Needn't, but it's a good occasion to do so. It's cases like this one that repeatedly show there's something in disorder in the Ameican justice system. E.g. what >>21763 said – the fuck, how could any jury buy 'some babyfucker's argument that he thought she was 18'? I didn't consider deliberate stupidity typical of the USA so far…

>>21771

Don't be an idiot: I was exaggerating. I doubt that ever happened.

>>21769

It's more like Japan is so incredibly repressed in open society that they need outlets to work out their frustration privately. What you see on the Internet is not what Japan is like.

>>21780

I'm acquainted with several Japanese people so I don't rely on the internet when it comes to what Japan ist like anyway. Of course you can never know whether some person needs 'outlets to work out their frustration privately' – and especially not of Japanese, who tend to keep the 'inner' (内 uchi) and the 'outer' (外 soto) strictly separated – but the impressive thing about Japan is that it actually works there, and has worked for millennia. And works quite well, I'd say. Any other society wit this amount of social self-control would have broken apart long ago (and has; what are we able to see in Iraq or Egypt right now?).

>>21590

> Children cannot legally consent.

So the law denies children the right to consent, but imposes on them the duty to vouch for their decisions? A child is deemed incapable of deciding whether he/she wants something but shall be responsible for his/her decisions? Don't you see how inherently contradictory that law is?

>>21474

Was his sister also arrested? According to the logic that an 11-year-old who plays sexually with his sister is a child rapist the same should be true vice-versa. That is, if he was guilty of statutory rape, she certainly was as well.

If she wasn't, the law was being interpreted haphazardly to get a male into prison. And application of law at haphazard is unlawful. (That's the sense of law.)

>>21763

>>21771

>>21776

But the mere possibility (that a jury could consist of people illiterate enough to buy such an excuse) is the reason why there are legal systems in which it's not amateurish juries that find the verdict but a council of professional judges (who then have to deliver a porofound verdict justification of course). Plus another advantage, you don't need jury duty then.

>>21805

Do you see EVEN A SINGLE POSTER in this thread attempting to rationalize or defend the law?

>>21805

It's not a contradiction. Because children don't have legal rights, they do not face the full responsibility of breaking the law. They are sent to detention centers for rehabilitation rather than prison for punishment. In addition, all juvenile criminal records tend to be erased/destroyed upon reaching adulthood.

>>21807

Usually in cases like these, the younger one gets immunity in exchange for testimony.

>>21821

Why only the younger one?

>>21819

There was some guy who claimed to not be rationalizing or defending that law but wrote things that sounded very much like he was. He indeed sounded very much like "If you don't agree with that law, try to get it changed – but I fully agree with it, so I have the obligation to remind you of its fucking contents."

>>21822

The DA (or Staatsanwalt, I guess because it's Germany) usually feels more sympathetic for the younger one and there isn't any code of ethics ruling who gets the plea bargain.

>>21824

> because it's Germany

I don't know about the >>21474 case, but the Wüthrich case was USA. And the other one was definitely not Germany, as in Germany children below the age of 14 cannot be convicted of nor arrested for a crime (maybe in civil law, but not in criminal law).

>>21823

>He indeed sounded very much

Now go find the part where he or anyone else actually wrote that.

What he wrote was literally nothing more than the objective truth. Is reality that painful for you to hear than anyone even recognizing it is automatically an enemy in your book?

Talk about fucking persecution complex.

>>21829

Oh, puhleeaase.

He doesn't know anything about the case – not even how old the boy or his sister exactly were –, but the first thing that comes to his mind to post it here was "It's hardly slander to call him an incestuous child rapist", a sentence implying you should be calling "him an incestuous child rapist"? It wasn't that guy who brought up the expression, but why should he have done it if he didn't want to remind us "hey, there's a fucking law out there I don't even know whether it applies to this case of but want to apply"?

>>21878

Yes, exactly. He doesn't know whether the boy's sister was actually old enough to consent in sex. If she was, it would be indeed slander to call her brother a child rapist. And that fucking retard didn't even think of that possibility, he just wanted to burp up his understanding of the law. Which really sounds like he wanted the law.

>>21826

> And the other one […] children below the age of 14

No age was being mentioned in >>21474. But regardless of the country it happened in, the parents have to be real brutes of neglectful parents if they tell on their own son and after his release from prison treat him in such a contemptuous way.

>>21880

If they were neglectful parents, they would just ignore it. You call that tough love.

>>21879

Given that the parents called the cops on the boy and not on the sister, it's pretty clear who was the older participant, which makes you post some tremendously fucking pathetic grasping.

Cry your pathetic tears while every single sentence in every post I've made remains completely correct. Why the fuck would I want those laws either anyways you laughable fucking dipshit?

Persecution

Complex

>>21890

Oh, if you tell me you don't want those laws, I do believe you, trust me. But if you're so fucking right and so fucking confident you're right, why do you cry your pathetic tears about others questioning what you write?

> Given that the parents called the cops on the boy and not on the sister, it's pretty clear who was the older participant

No, sir, certainly not. Non sequitur. Although you're probably right that most people would be fatuous enough to assume it's always the older one who's the perpetrator, you cannot deduce this and therefore – if you really care about every single sentence in every post you make remaining completely correct – shouldn't.

>>21889

If they were parents that are what parents should be like – namely, parents that love their children and care about them –, they would never ever call the cops on any of their children unless those children do something their parents feel unable to deal with using educational measures. And if the latter is the case, there's usually gone more wrong in this respect than just a boy playing doctor with his sister. In that case, the parents are so utterly bad parents that they should have been dispossessed of their children a long time ago already. And that's completely independent of any statutory rape laws.

> Persecution

> Complex

Persecution is a complex thing. I don't know what kind of complex you have, but it's certainly one that requires you to justify views you don't share.

>>21920

I have offered a defense from your inexplicable delirious 'they're all out to get me' accusations.

You are the one crying and making an absolute embarrassment of yourself, and you can go ahead and stop any time you feel like, but no, you need to turn this non-argument into a platform for your paranoid conniption fit.

>No, sir, certainly not. Non sequitur. Although you're probably right that most people would be fatuous enough to assume it's always the older one who's the perpetrator, you cannot deduce this and therefore – if you really care about every single sentence in every post you make remaining completely correct – shouldn't.

Most pathetic attempt at grasping on this entire board.

>Y-Y-Y-YOU CAN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just pathetic. There's something mentally wrong with you to be this spitefully contrarian over nothing.

>>21920

>they would never ever call the cops on any of their children unless those children do something their parents feel unable to deal with using educational measures

Loving someone means you turn a blind eye when he breaks the law? I could see that if he broke a law nobody cares about, like jaywalking or copyright violation, but something serious like rape or lewd acts with a minor?

>>21927

It was named after the goddess, not the planet

>>19353

I don't even share the sexual preference you folks have, and that pic is hardcore rage fuel. It makes me a lot more ancap. I wish to god we had someone like Mary Ruwart in charge instead of left-wing and right-wing authoritarians.

>>21929

> Loving someone means you turn a blind eye when he breaks the law?

See you are sticking with that fucking law.

> I could see that if he broke a law nobody cares about, like jaywalking or copyright violation

I'd be very much more concerned about children jaywalking or violating copyrights than children exploring their sexuality. Of course I wouldn't call the cops on them if they jaywalked or violated copyrights either, as they're my' children, and until I completely lose any educational control over them (which will happen if they are taken away from me and locked away in some prison or detention center), I'd rather try to teach them what they did was dangerous or morally questionable or whatever and that they'd be well advised not to do it, using educational measures of course, like grounding them or cutting their computer/internet access (if they've been violating copyrights online). I'd most certainly do my best to avoid giving them over to a legal system that treats them like adult delinquents.

> something serious like rape or lewd acts with a minor

I won't be discussing whether it was rape in the case described, but if a child did something that's undoubtedly (not just legally) rape (and I know such cases did happen), it should be counteracted with severe educational measures, and if those don't help, therapies (children who repeatedly commit rape probably have mental health problems), and if those don't help either, well, then it's time to think about what the legal system can do for you.

The problem is that a child's psyche is still shapeable and that legal punishment is likely to cause the wrong "shapement". E.g. if the child doesn't know why what it did was wrong being detained in a prison or prison-like institution will probably convince the child that being caught was worse than (or bad instead of) doing what it was caught doing. That's a way unscrupulous felons are being made, who think whatever they do is fine unless they're being caught.

> lewd acts with a minor

How serious this is depends on how lewd the acts are. Playing doctor is usually believed to be unproblematic; if your children start having sex, you should be asking yourself where they got the idea from.

>>21935

>See you are sticking with that fucking law.

Or maybe there are multiple posters on this site. You are fucking every ounce the paranoid persecution complex retard I've said you are holy shit you are fucking laughable.

>>21937

> Or maybe there are multiple posters on this site.

You very well know yourself that multiple posters cannot be distinguished here. And you literally defend that law just as aggressively as Mr. >>21553 "It's hardly slander to call him a child rapist" did. Do you really suppose me to suspect every single new post here has been written by a new person? Don't be this stupid.

> paranoid persecution complex

So was it you who said this or was it someone else?

After all, you don't even address my points, you get stuck with the first line. It's fucking you who's fucking laughable. You just don't want this discussion because you know you've lost it the moment you started it.

>>21929

I would assume most people would probably give huge leeway towards their family members.

Maybe not something like an adult committing rape or murder, but for something like the story posted yea it's pretty crazy that they would report their own son to the authorities, especially when it's solely inside the family.

What probably happened was they just wanted to get their son professional help and it completely blew up in their faces, like a family calling the police to deal with a suicidal family member and the police end up shooting the person.

>>21923

Sorry, overlooked this post.

> I have offered a defense from your inexplicable delirious 'they're all out to get me' accusations.

Except that I never wrote any such accuse. Where the fuck do you read that from? If I complain about a contradictory law in a shithole country I don't even live in that's persecution complex, right? Don't be this stupid.

> You are the one crying and making an absolute embarrassment of yourself, and you can go ahead and stop any time you feel like, but no, you need to turn this non-argument into a platform for your paranoid conniption fit.

Aren't you the one throwing insults wildly around? Aren't I the one who's trying to stay polite while everyone else just goes insane here? And you really want me to believe it's me who's crying here? Don't be this stupid.

I just wanted a polite discussion but you are most obviously not interested in a polite discussion. Most probably because you're sure you'll lose.

> Most pathetic attempt at grasping on this entire board.

But absolutely true, in contrast to the mental diarrhoea you choose to write.

> >Y-Y-Y-YOU CAN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Just pathetic.

No, logic. Pure logic. If you have a problem with logic, go quarrel with mathematics.

> There's something mentally wrong with you to be this spitefully contrarian over nothing.

Why the fuck am I contrarian?

>>21924

>>You're not allowed to say things that you aren't 100% certain on!

>>I'm going to call you a liar who's trying to mock pedos for some reason even though I'm not 100% certain about it!

There's a difference between making an assumption based on one's knowledge about the world and shooting into the dark to justify something nobody has even asked for. But didn't I write "Although you're probably right"? If you really cared about every post you make remaining completely correct, you should stop shooting into the dark.

>>21939

> like a family calling the police to deal with a suicidal family member and the police end up shooting the person

I like that comparison. At least you understand what I'm trying to tell the insult-keen people on this board.

>>21829

> What he wrote was literally nothing more than the objective truth.

It's also hardly slander to call Russia a democracy. Yet if you say so in the context of the Ukraine crisis, you'll most probably end up being considered a pro-Russian anti-democratic pighead. If you say it's hardly slander to call someone a child rapist in the context of talking about the American system concerning child abuse and so on, you shouldn't be surprised if people believe you like him being called a child rapist. It's as easy as this.

> fucking persecution complex

Faggotry increases.

>>21944

I also happen to be the same poster as the one you're crying about you absolute laughingstock of a non human.

Like seriously I want even one other browser on this board to come to your defense that you aren't the most hilariously pathetic shitheap to grace page 1 of this board.

Just one other poster, please.

>>21890

> while every single sentence in every post I've made remains completely correct

Okay, let's check this. Of course I don't know which posts are yours, but judging from your keenness to defend the 'it's the law the law the law' know-nothing I'll just assume his posts are yours.

> He got caught having sex with his sister.

At least unsure. It said 'an adolescent boy who was caught playing sexually with his sister'. That could also mean foreplay, not necessarily intercourse. It could also mean dry-humping; in that case writing 'caught having sex' is fucking ridiculous.

> And you don't "accidentally" touch someones genitals.

Wrong. See >>21586 for an intelligible narration how this could happen.

> The parts where you are lying

Wrong. He didn't lie, he just was mistaken.

> Next time don't write posts your butt can't cash.

Double negation. Wrong.

> What argument? There is no argument.

Wrong. 'Children cannot legally consent' is indeed an argument in favour of the 'child rapist' theory, and therefore an argument.

> what YOU call anything does not really matter here

Wrong. If it were true, discussion boards would be pointless and not existing whatsoever.

> If something can be true under any definition, it isn't false anymore.

Wrong. Something is false if it can be proven false using a definition reached an agreement about. (Of course in the above case, an agreement about the definition hadn't been reached.)

> It is literally the truth that statutory rape laws exist and children cannot legally consent.

Wrong. In Germany, children can legally consent (in a limited way) if they're seven years or older. There aren't any statutory rape laws in Germany either. The term doesn't exist there, and that's not only because of the language.

> I'm literally doing nothing more than telling you that the system exists

Wrong. You were doing much more: You were justifying the system.

> ignorance of the law is not an excuse

Wrong. § 17 StGB, German law.

TLDR: There are many sentences you (see above for a working definition of 'you') posted that are wrong or at least questionable. Which makes

> every single sentence in every post I've made remains completely correct

also a wrong sentence. Quod erat demonstrandum, prodigium.

>>21947

> I also happen to be the same poster as the one you're crying about

So you did understand what I was trying to tell you? Why are you pretending not to know it then? And when will you acknowledge I'm not the one crying and blurting out insults but you are?

> you absolute laughingstock of a non human

> hilariously pathetic shitheap

I'd really like to reply using insults as creative as yours, but as I already said, its not me who's crying here. I'll stay polite.

> Just one other poster, please

What about >>21948? Or will you claim that's also me then? If you do, it's the last piece of evidence that you're somewhat paranoid and keep projecting that fact on your discussion partner to distract from your own inability to make valid points.

Jesus fuck this is insane how delirious one shitposter can become.

>>21949

Also you utterly hilarious shit, while tfw can't see your IP he can differentiate posters, you completely baffling desperate failed abortion.

Anyhoo,

> He got caught having sex with his sister.

> And you don't "accidentally" touch someones genitals.

> If something can be true under any definition, it isn't false anymore.

not me

>Wrong. He didn't lie, he just was mistaken.

He didn't know the facts and decided to make them up instead, you know, the thing you keep crying at me about.

>> Next time don't write posts your butt can't cash.

>Double negation. Wrong.

You know, before I put this unworthy of life animal down for good, anyone here want to give it a lesson in reading comprehension, syntax, and common idioms?

>> what YOU call anything does not really matter here

>Wrong. If it were true, discussion boards would be pointless and not existing whatsoever.

Here in the context of the law. Your definitions are worthless in the face of legal definitions in a court of law.

>Wrong. In Germany, children can legally consent (in a limited way) if they're seven years or older. There aren't any statutory rape laws in Germany either. The term doesn't exist there, and that's not only because of the language.

Funny story, but this is about an event that occurred in the US and deals with a swiss kid.

>> I'm literally doing nothing more than telling you that the system exists

>Wrong. You were doing much more: You were justifying the system.

At the time of that post the only things I had posted were abject undeniable facts. Also of note I still as of this very post have not defended the system. Also of note you are a pathetically paranoid persecution complex thing that is best off at this point just killing yourself. Your only dignified way out from this is suicide.

>Wrong. § 17 StGB, German law.

Why are you so desperate that you keep bringing up a totally irrelevant countries laws? Is it because you feel like you can't put forth an argument without lying?

So in summary I've just destroyed every single spoonful of retarded drivel that's spilled out of your hilariously malformed face yet again.

It's really questionable whether things like you deserve anything more than an agonizing death, truly.

>>21622

>'The law says X, thus X is true' is an argument.

Only one post ever made this argument, here >>21625

The only other argument and the one currently being discussed is "the law says X, thus X is ""legally"" true."

Which is a self-evidently correct statement. It's as simple as Y=Y.

It's interesting that you choose to keep bringing up German law and claiming you don't have any interest in US laws, while discussing a particular case of US law. Also if your opinion is "explaining how a law functions is equivalent to defending that law" then shouldn't you criticizing that law be equivalent to wanting to change that law? This whole argument really should have ended here >>21664

Oh, and that wasn't a double negation. It was the same thing as saying 'don't eat swizz cheese that doesn't have holes in it.'

>>21955

> not me

Oh, that should be acceptable. But the fact that you want to tell this shows you haven't read his "working definition".

> He didn't know the facts and decided to make them up instead, you know, the thing you keep crying at me about.

Yet lying and making up things are two different kettle of fish. You wouldn't call every novel author a liar, would you? Also, I'm not at all crying, especially not about you making anything up. If you really aren't the shitposter from above – as said previously, this cannot be distinguished, as writing styles don't differ enough –, there shouldn't be anything for you to cry about.

> reading comprehension, syntax, and common idioms

Double negation is double negation. Don't write something you can't do X with means you shall not write Y if X cannot be done with Y. That is, "don't write posts your butt can't c[r]ash" means you mustn't write consistent posts. Which would be bullshit.

> Here in the context of the law. Your definitions are worthless in the face of legal definitions in a court of law.

We aren't in a court of law. I'm not the one who already went on a rant about this, but he wrote pretty convincingly that the whole dispute arose around a misunderstanding regarding the use of definitions. Period.

> Funny story, but this is about an event that occurred in the US and deals with a swiss kid.

The sentence "Children cannot legally consent" is still wrong, disproven by counter-example. I don't say that I don't understand that context thing, I do understand there was context, but as a sentence, it's still wrong. Okay, it wasn't you who wrote it, but if the one who did really cared about writing completely correct sentences, there he failed.

Furthermore, "this is about an event that occurred in the US and deals with a swiss kid" isn't necessarily true (!) if the case >>21474 was talking about wasn't the Wüthrich case. And we don't know that yet.

> At the time of that post the only things I had posted were abject undeniable facts.

Namely?

> Also of note I still as of this very post have not defended the system.

I don't know which of the posts that have appeared here are from you, but the person this is all about tried to deliver a justification for the system, while not defending it probably. Otherwise, that person would not have had such severe difficulty admitting >>21553 was a blooper.

> you are a pathetically paranoid persecution complex thing

Please. As of that very post of yours you have never and nowhere even tried to intellegibly explain why you think I'm paranoid or should be suffering from a persecution complex. Your continued obsession with claiming that is really ridiculous. I don't even understand why you're trying that desperately to shout me down with your annoying ad hominem strategy. If you're really not defending the system, we're on the same side and shouldn't be arguing – that weakens our position. So the first thing you could do to show your genuine aversion against the system would be stopping to bawl insults and starting to calm down.

> Why are you so desperate that you keep bringing up a totally irrelevant countries laws?

If you or anyone else is trying to dress something that isn't true under any jurisdiction (e.g. wrong under the German one) up as something universally true, this isn't irrelevant. And don't tell me it's this context thing again. The stumbling block was the claim that "it's hardly slander to call him an incestuous child rapist", which has been discussed thoroughly and isn't subject here anymore. And there are other reasons to challenge that claim, most importantly that he must not be called a person who's committed a certain crime until a court has found him guilty of that crime. So calling him an incestuous child rapist is indeed slander until he's found guilty. I don't know whether this was the case in the Wüthrich case, and I don't know either whether it was the case in the other case, but I don't want to argue about this either, so please stop talking so stupidly haughtily if you don't know what you're talking about.

> Why are you so desperate […]? Is it because you feel like you can't put forth an argument without lying?

> So in summary I've just destroyed every single spoonful of retarded drivel that's spilled out of your hilariously malformed face yet again.

Why are you so desperately obsessed with calling me insults? Is it because you can't put forth any argument without flouts accompanying it? My dear, this won't get you many friends. By the way, why do you think you have "destroyed" anything "again"? You haven't destroyed anything yet, if I may bother to remind you.

Cont. soon

> It's really questionable whether things like you deserve anything more than an agonizing death

So why are you upset enough to wish others dead? Is your self-esteem that low that you really want your discussion partner dead the moment he says something you don't agree with? Remember, it's not like I've killed your daughter or something. I didn't do anything else than challenging a view I consider terribly dangerous. If you're unable to cope with people who are of different opinions than you are and want them dead just because you dislike them, then, really, you are the one who's unworthy of roaming this world. Thank you.

I won't respond to the next bunch of your gratuitous insults as this discussion will never lead anywhere since you've undoubtedly shown your destructive unwillingness to engage in a polite dialogue. I tell you this in order to save you the expense of writing down a new superfluous bunch of unnecessary insults. That would be wasting your breath as I won't even bother reading them. My time is too precious to be wasted on communicating with someone as unreasonably uncooperative as you are.

>>21962

>Oh, that should be acceptable. But the fact that you want to tell this shows you haven't read his "working definition".

What?

>Yet lying and making up things are two different kettle of fish. You wouldn't call every novel author a liar, would you?

If I asked you what time it was and you didn't know yet still pretended to know and gave a false answer yes you are absolutely being a liar.

He didn't know the facts, and he pretended he did while making them up. He lied.

>Double negation is double negation. Don't write something you can't do X with means you shall not write Y if X cannot be done with Y. That is, "don't write posts your butt can't c[r]ash" means you mustn't write consistent posts. Which would be bullshit.

Why don't you google the fucking phrase "don't write checks your butt can't cash" you astounding fucking fool. It's an incredibly common idiom that means the exact opposite of what you think it means you utterly contemptible retard. It literally means "do not make a statement that you cannot back up with evidence". Holy fucking shit you are so otherworldly stupid.

>We aren't in a court of law.

Every single post I have made since the very first has only been made within reference to the law.

>The sentence "Children cannot legally consent" is still wrong, disproven by counter-example.

A counter example that is utterly irrelevant. The sentence is correct and will forever remain correct no matter how long you choose to cry about it. The sky isn't always blue but the sentence "the sky is blue" is so true that is the universally used analogy for an obviously true statement.

>Furthermore, "this is about an event that occurred in the US and deals with a swiss kid" isn't necessarily true (!) if the case >>21474 was talking about wasn't the Wüthrich case. And we don't know that yet.

More utterly pathetic grasping.

It's the case we chose to pursue. Get over it or kill yourself.

> but the person this is all about tried to deliver a justification for the system

Uttered not even one word of justification, ever, and you will always be a worthless subhuman.

Jesus Christ you fucking autists, go work syllogism puzzles some where else. Why are so many pedophiles blithering fucking pseudo-intellectual idiots who want to analyze everything like it's predicate logic? And why must it always go into an argument of syntax and minute details that have nothing to do with the main arguments? Either get a fucking life or just die you fucking worthless subhuman trash.

>>21984

When you read some posts on younglove you can't help but feel there's some truth to the idea that pedos have a lower iq on average.

>>21985

I think it's just /pol/ with the lower iq…

>>22022

>and as such the feds us this as the ultimate smear tool to silence political dissents before they get any attention

when has this actually happened?

>>22041

>before they get any attention

>>22048

>just believe me

>>22041

I can't even begin to tell you how many wistleblowers have been suddenly hit with anomalous child porn charges and are never heard from again.

>>22055

let me help you out then, how about you begin with one of them, like I asked?

>>22074

I'm reading and reading but there just doesn't seem to be a part that proves he was falsely accused or even that they specifically monitored him or singled him out. He happened to get caught in the net the cast.

But whatever, you'll believe whatever you want to believe and nobody else can inject critical thinking into your brain but you.

Also, what exactly was he supposed to be whistleblowing?

There's way more evidence of governments protecting powerful pedophiles than there is of governments using cp to get rid of people they don't like.

If they did want to get rid of someone they wouldn't use cp they would use bribery or embezzlement because guess what that gets you put away a lot fucking longer than any cp charges would and just as equally fucks up your political life as cp would.

>>22088

It's easier to plant CP or drugs on someone than prove corruption.

>>22089

They didn't plant evidence of the above guy talking to undercover cops. Or on anyone else because that doesn't ever happen. Why didn't they plant cp on assange's pc? that would be a lot easier than getting actors to claim he raped them. Seriously, who has this happened to and why have NONE of them even attempted to claim they were set up?

What is even the argument? Legalize possession of cp because it could possibly be used to incriminate someone?

Also, I'm talking about pinning embezzlement on them, not catching them actually embezzling.

You know how you 'catch' someone in a bribe? Mail money to their house and photograph them picking it up.