Thread Derail & Derailment Repository

[King Arts]

Anyone older than 19 soliciting sexual anything from 17 and younger, especially if the relationship started after the older person turned 18. Barring special circumstances, deserves only flaying alive.

She was 17 years 11 months 28 days 23 hours and 50 minutes old when it happened she was basically a child who was playing with dolls!

Why don’t you go cut your dick off and turn yourself into a tranny, this shit could e real which if it is is not that big a deal OR this could be an extra bullshit charge. The commies used to add false trumped up charges to people who were against them. An example being Marie Antoinette being accused of incest.

Honestly him defecting to Russia is a bigger issue than Zomg 17 year old!

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yes, which suggests he wasn't actually looking for girls that look younger.
Instead he got a 17 year old's naked selfies. she probably looked like a full grown adult.

No I doubt that. It sounds more like to me he likes more interaction and solicitation with his sexual desires. If she looked like an adult, then there's lots of legal adults he could be pursuing for solicitation of intimate lewdities... and pornography of them as well.

oh... and I just checked... it was explicitly in rhode island whose age of consent is 16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Rhode_Island

meaning it was perfectly legal for him to fuck this 17 year old. but the moment she sent him a naked selfie it became child porn.
which makes the whole thing even more bizzare

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

 

[mrttao]

No I doubt that. It sounds more like to me he likes more interaction and solicitation with his sexual desires. If she looked like an adult, then there's lots of legal adults he could be pursuing for solicitation of intimate lewdities... and pornography of them as well.

You are assuming he knew she was 17.

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them?

Where did you get distribution from? the charge was possession.
She sent him naked selfies. He didn't distribute them.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You are assuming he knew she was 17.

Of course I'm assuming that. If I wasn't assuming that for the hypothetical then I wouldn't be making that hypothetical.

Where did you get distribution from? the charge was possession.
She sent him naked selfies. He didn't distribute them.

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

The main thing is I can see why being involved in child pornography is different then just having sex with someone below an age of consent in a particular state and so I don't see it as bizarre as others such as you may.

 

[mrttao]

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

> possessing something as its end user makes you involved in its distribution

no, it really really doesn't.
if you buy an iphone, you are not "involved in the distribution of apple products".

 

[Husky_Khan]

> possessing something as its end user makes you involved in its distribution

no, it really really doesn't.
if you buy an iphone, you are not "involved in the distribution of apple products".

I mean yes it does because he's receiving it. That's what my wording was meant to convey. I don't really care about the semantics of it.

Tomato. Tamato.

 

[AmosTrask]

> possessing something as its end user makes you involved in its distribution

no, it really really doesn't.
if you buy an iphone, you are not "involved in the distribution of apple products".

That is a false equivalence bullshit. It is Not the fucking same and you know that damn well. If you don't then you're not a person worth acknowledging going forward.

 

[Husky_Khan]

That is a false equivalence bullshit. It is Not the fucking same and you know that damn well. If you don't then you're not a person worth acknowledging going forward.

Child Porn Media in a digital format is probably more easy to distribute then a fancy iPhone as well which was part of the original point anyways.

But I guess talking about semantics is more interesting then actually sharing opinions and ideas lol.

This is why shitposting is better then trying to actually discuss things.

 

[mrttao]

That is a false equivalence bullshit. It is Not the fucking same and you know that damn well. If you don't then you're not a person worth acknowledging going forward.

Amos. The police charged him with possession.
Husky is arguing that the police is wrong, and that possession = distribution.
That any time someone is charged with possession of X, he should instead be charged with distribution of X.

This is the argument husky is making. because he is crazy.
I am not making a false equivalence. I am literally pointing out how silly this argument is.

If you don't then you're not a person worth acknowledging going forward.

I knew some fucking retard is going to go REEEEEEEEEEEE you are defending pedos!
No I am not. I am calling you guys out for making blatantly wrong statement.

This is like
> Hitler was evil because he killed animals
> me: actually hitler was a vegeterian and wanted to force everyone to be one too
> REEEEE. you are defending hitler! YOU NAZI! HOW COULD YOU!

This is literally you, but instead of "REEE DEFENDING NAZIES" it is "REEEE DEFENDING PEDOS".
Pedos should be executed. But if you are trying to argue that "possesson == distribution" you are a moron.

 

[mrttao]

Child Porn Media in a digital format is probably more easy to distribute then a fancy iPhone as well which was part of the original point anyways.

It does not matter if it is "easier to distribute". Distribution and possesion are two different things.
police never charged him with distribution. They charged him with possession.

By your argument, every single person who ever got busted with drug possession should also be punished for distribution. After all, it is super easy to distribute.
Yet instead, the police investigates each case and charges them based on actual action

 

[Husky_Khan]

It does not matter if it is "easier to distribute". Distribution and possesion are two different things.
police never charged him with distribution. They charged him with possession.

By your argument, every single person who ever got busted with drug possession should also be punished for distribution. After all, it is super easy to distribute.
Yet instead, the police investigates each case and charges them based on actual action

I didn't say he should be punished for distribution. I said he was involved in the distribution by being the recipient of it lol.

Just like if he was receiving sex slaves he is involved in sex trafficking.

I'm sorry (not really) that your getting hung up on the semantics.

I've explained what I meant like three times now. This is hilarious (if only to me).

 

[Husky_Khan]

Amos. The police charged him with possession.
Husky is arguing that the police is wrong, and that possession = distribution.
That any time someone is charged with possession of X, he should instead be charged with distribution of X.

This is the argument husky is making. because he is crazy.
I am not making a false equivalence. I am literally pointing out how silly this argument is.

Looooool I love how your getting that argument! This is awesome.

I wish I could strawman as shamelessly as you bro.

 

[Husky_Khan]

For the folks scrolling over this stuff at home we've gone from this... (Note the italicized/bolded portion)

No I doubt that. It sounds more like to me he likes more interaction and solicitation with his sexual desires. If she looked like an adult, then there's lots of legal adults he could be pursuing for solicitation of intimate lewdities... and pornography of them as well.

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

To this:

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

To this:

Amos. The police charged him with possession.
Husky is arguing that the police is wrong, and that possession = distribution.
That any time someone is charged with possession of X, he should instead be charged with distribution of X.

This is the argument husky is making. because he is crazy.
I am not making a false equivalence. I am literally pointing out how silly this argument is.

Pedos should be executed. But if you are trying to argue that "possesson == distribution" you are a moron.

I love this community. I bet loads of you are interpreting this as he is and it's beautiful. Smh I can't even...

 

[AmosTrask]

Well here is my old school, mountain clan interpretation, and the interpretation of most First Gen immigrants from my corner of the world. If you possess child pornography of any kind, if you are involved in the making and distribution of such filth. Pray the police arrest you. They'll only beat you and you'll reach trial mostly intact. The other outcome you saw live when those Haitian police handcuffed those gangsters in the town square and "Went to lunch."

We're getting off topic. Russia just issued another Red Line. . . Sigh. I wish Putin would shut the fuck up. Or maybe you Americans would give Ukraine that ginsu knife hellfire. Just kill all of them.

He'll even Belarus and that little pissant, with delusions of being a country Transnistria just over our border is talking shit. The little shits actually think they can hit us and Russia can come save them before our artillery wipe every single one of their communist asses.

 

[King Arts]

Of course I'm assuming that. If I wasn't assuming that for the hypothetical then I wouldn't be making that hypothetical.



I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

The main thing is I can see why being involved in child pornography is different then just having sex with someone below an age of consent in a particular state and so I don't see it as bizarre as others such as you may.

Surely you aren’t defending backwards ass laws. It would be better for America to have one standard set of laws for all the states. And to tie sex things together so the federal government should raise the aoc to 18 and we should stop liking this backwards ass “federalism”

 

[Husky_Khan]

Surely you aren’t defending backwards ass laws. It would be better for America to have one standard set of laws for all the states. And to tie sex things together so the federal government should raise the aoc to 18 and we should stop liking this backwards ass “federalism”

I'm ambivalent towards a larger federalism argument either way as far as this discussion is. I just find it hilarious how this...

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

The main thing is I can see why being involved in child pornography is different then just having sex with someone below an age of consent in a particular state and so I don't see it as bizarre as others such as you may.

Somehow got distilled into this...

Husky is arguing that the police is wrong, and that possession = distribution.
That any time someone is charged with possession of X, he should instead be charged with distribution of X.

This is the argument husky is making. because he is crazy.
I am not making a false equivalence. I am literally pointing out how silly this argument is.

Pedos should be executed. But if you are trying to argue that "possesson == distribution" you are a moron.

I can get the initial wording can be confusing but the leap of logic and strawmanning over semantics is hilarious.

"Did you rob the victims body after the murder? Then you are involved in the murder."

"WHAT? I DIDN'T MURDER ANYONE! That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1""

---

"You provided alcohol to the teenagers who got raped? Then you are involved in the rape."

"I'm not a rapist. That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1"

---

I literally clarified that it was involvement, not equivalence in my first response, hence semantics and then he brings up some iPhone nonsense and goes to town invoking Hitler and Nazis and Retardation for retarded reasons. It's a great example of the high level discussion that takes place here when I made it clear I was stating "involvement" as in being "involved." Not equivocating anything lol.

 

[King Arts]

I'm ambivalent towards a larger federalism argument either way as far as this discussion is. I just find it hilarious how this...





Somehow got distilled into this...



I can get the initial wording can be confusing but the leap of logic and strawmanning over semantics is hilarious.

"Did you rob the victims body after the murder? Then you are involved in the murder."

"WHAT? I DIDN'T MURDER ANYONE! That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1""

---

"You provided alcohol to the teenagers who got raped? Then you are involved in the rape."

"I'm not a rapist. That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1"

---

I literally clarified that it was involvement, not equivalence in my first response, hence semantics and then he brings up some iPhone nonsense and goes to town invoking Hitler and Nazis and Retardation for retarded reasons. It's a great example of the high level discussion that takes place here when I made it clear I was stating "involvement" as in being "involved." Not equivocating anything lol.

But robbing a dead body after the fact isn’t murder. It’s scummy behavior and should be illegal, and the police should investigate to see if you are connected to the murderrers. But being a scavenger after a crime does not mean you had anything to do with the original crime so your hypothetical is wrong.

 

[Husky_Khan]

But robbing a dead body after the fact isn’t murder. It’s scummy behavior and should be illegal, and the police should investigate to see if you are connected to the murderrers. But being a scavenger after a crime does not mean you had anything to do with the original crime so your hypothetical is wrong.

I said INVOLVED in the murder. Not the murderer. As a witness. I thought that implication was obvious. I literally have to spell out these things apparently...

I mean I shouldn't be surprised. It's you after all lol.

 

[mrttao]

It is just semantics lol

It isn't just semantics. You are literally arguing that anyone who is guilty of possession is guilty of distribution.
and trying to play semantics game while crying "you are twisting my words" while doubling down on the stupidity.

I said INVOLVED in the murder. Not the murderer. As a witness.

facepalm...
No, if you witnessed a murder you are not "involved in a murder"
Stop spewing nonsense.

 

[Husky_Khan]

It isn't just semantics. You are literally arguing that anyone who is guilty of possession is guilty of distribution.

No I didn't lol. I'll repost for your convenience.

---

What's bizarre about it being illegal to be involved in the distribution of pornographic pictures and videos of sixteen and seventeen year olds though even if you can fuck them? They're still not adults in most legal senses of the words even if you can fuck them sexually.

I get that it's not perfectly consistent, but child pornography of sixteen or seventeen year olds as opposed to eighteen and over does strike me as something that seems fine to me legally and I'm not sure why, beyond "bizarre" numbers why it should even be considered bizarre to make child pornography of sixteen and seventeen year olds (and under obviously) illegal even if the age of actual consent to sex is different. Having pornographic pictures of sixteen and seventeen year olds seems skeevy and should be illegal IMHO even if the age of consent is lower.

Obviously sex can have a lot of potential pitfalls, dangers and vices and whatnot coming out of it, but so can pornography and furthermore it can be distributed and spread that sort of degeneracy about.

Sixteen or eighteen or twenty one for various adult things might seem arbitrary, but that's just the way it is. If there's going to be a benchmark for all of these things, you have to pick an age since not everyone matures at the same age (or enough at all to engage in adult things lol).

Just IMHO it doesn't strike me as bizarre at all if I think about it a little longer.

I didn't say distribution. I said "involved in the distribution" which includes possession IMHO. If you interpreted it otherwise, that was the intent of my wording.

The main thing is I can see why being involved in child pornography is different then just having sex with someone below an age of consent in a particular state and so I don't see it as bizarre as others such as you may.

Somehow got distilled into this...

Husky is arguing that the police is wrong, and that possession = distribution.
That any time someone is charged with possession of X, he should instead be charged with distribution of X.

This is the argument husky is making. because he is crazy.
I am not making a false equivalence. I am literally pointing out how silly this argument is.

Pedos should be executed. But if you are trying to argue that "possesson == distribution" you are a moron.

I can get the initial wording can be confusing but the leap of logic and strawmanning over semantics is hilarious.

"Did you rob the victims body after the murder? Then you are involved in the murder."

"WHAT? I DIDN'T MURDER ANYONE! That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1""

---

"You provided alcohol to the teenagers who got raped? Then you are involved in the rape."

"I'm not a rapist. That's false equivalence bullshit Hitler! Retards! Moron! Nazis! Reee!!1"

---

I literally clarified that it was involvement, not equivalence in my first response, hence semantics and then he brings up some iPhone nonsense and goes to town invoking Hitler and Nazis and Retardation for retarded reasons. It's a great example of the high level discussion that takes place here when I made it clear I was stating "involvement" as in being "involved." Not equivocating anything lol.

---

Stating you are involved in something isn't the equivalent of stating you are doing the thing. This should be obvious but alas... the Child Pornography Defense Brigade is out in force today lol.