T1B

mvscal wrote:Scofflaw. How dare you disrespect the law of the land. You should BE IN PRISON!!!

--Grampy Mace

If he was 29 and getting a blowjob from a 16 year old then, yeah, he should be. Those folks are called sex offenders.

KC Scott wrote:Gotta say MVS, I'm kinda surprised to see you're a proponent of adults diddling teenagers.

I can only assume you don't have children

Keep on assuming, idiot. As long as no force or coersion is involved I couldn't care less and neither should you. It's none of your business.

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:And?

"And" it's against the law.

So is driving 70 in 65 zone but who really gives a fuck?

Well she isn't nor would she have any such interest. She's a good, smart kid and her boyfried is good kid as well. I'm sure she's given him a handy or twenty but I really don't care.

mvscal wrote:Well she isn't nor would she have any such interest. She's a good, smart kid and her boyfried is good kid as well. I'm sure she's given him a handy or twenty but I really don't care.

That's what all the black grandmothers say about their granddaughters. Right? Right?

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:And?

"And" it's against the law.

So is driving 70 in 65 zone but who really gives a fuck?

You're comparing a speeding ticket to statutory rape? I suppose attempting to assassinate a politician is like Jaywalking in your book too? :roll:

You people DO realize that you're arguing with a social pariah and a proven sociopath, correct?

Carry on.

Truman wrote:

You people DO realize that you're arguing with a social pariah and a proven sociopath, correct?

Carry on.

Yep. I just look forward to reading his next idiotic statement to see if he can top the previous one.

Mace wrote:You're comparing a speeding ticket to statutory rape?

Not at all. Speeding is far more dangerous to the publlic than statutory "rape."

Mace wrote:I just look forward to reading his next idiotic statement to see if he can top the previous one.

mvscal wrote:Speeding is far more dangerous to the publlic than rape.

This should be good.

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote:Well she isn't nor would she have any such interest. She's a good, smart kid and her boyfried is good kid as well. I'm sure she's given him a handy or twenty but I really don't care.

But what you said was you wouldn't have any problem with it - right?

What I said is that I don't worry about it. The idea of her falling for some creepy lech twice her age is laughable to me. It's almost as amusing as the hysterical knee jerk pearl clutching that people like you go through whenever teens and sex are mentioned in the same sentence or rather when female teens and male adults are the case. The teen male gets a high five. The teen female gets a shitstorm of clucking and punitive outrage. The reaction to it is more damaging than the act itself.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Speeding is far more dangerous to the publlic than rape.

This should be good.

Looks like you forgot something there, lil fella. Or were you trying to "fix that for me"?

I didn't "forget" anything, and no I was not going for a FTFA you stupid, vile, self-loathing, racist fuck.

mvsociopath wrote:The reaction to it is more damaging than the act itself.

No it isn't.

Moving Sale wrote:I didn't "forget" anything, and no I was not going for a FTFA you stupid, vile, self-loathing, racist fuck.

You forgot the statutory part.

Truman wrote:

mvsociopath wrote:The reaction to it is more damaging than the act itself.

No it isn't.

Link?

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:You're comparing a speeding ticket to statutory rape?

Not at all. Speeding is far more dangerous to the publlic than statutory "rape."

Someone driving 70 in a 65 is more dangerous than a rapist??? :roll: I was right. You never fail to come up with something more idiotic than your previous post.

mvsociopath wrote:

Truman wrote:

mvsociopath wrote:The reaction to it is more damaging than the act itself.

No it isn't.

Link?

Knock yourself out, Loser. Spit cups have more redeeming qualities....

if it can be shown that coersion may have been used to get a 16 year old boy to nail a 30 year old skank, i say though the book at her.

having been a 16 year old boy in a previous life (or so it seems) i would have to guess that her grueling coersion tactics consisted of something along the lines of "wanna fukk, junior?"

i realize that it is a bit hypocritical of me to say that it ain't the same when the genders are reversed, but, i think this opinion is shared by many other hypocrits. this boy is would have suffered nothing other than maybe a few facial cramps from the non-stop grin he would have carried for the remainder of the semester.

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:You're comparing a speeding ticket to statutory rape?

Not at all. Speeding is far more dangerous to the publlic than statutory "rape."

Someone driving 70 in a 65 is more dangerous than a rapist???

Rape requires force or coercion and, as such, is a crime of violence which should be punished by death.

Statutory "rape" is not forcible in any way, shape or form. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate, but inappropriate is a long way from criminal.

i think it comes down to age.

consensually fukking a 16 year old is kinda dumb and shouldn't be condoned. but, it shouldn't be something you go to jail for.

a 12 year old is a different story. throw the fukker under the jail. and in this case, i don't care which sex is oldest or youngest.

sackandballic wrote:i think it comes down to age.

consensually fukking a 16 year old is kinda dumb and shouldn't be condoned. but, it shouldn't be something you go to jail for.

Sixteen year-olds cannot legally drink, smoke, vote, die for their country OR give their consent.

You're just as fucked up as mvscal.

mvscal wrote:Rape requires force or coercion and, as such, is a crime of violence which should be punished by death.

Statutory "rape" is not forcible in any way, shape or form. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate, but inappropriate is a long way from criminal.

At what age would you have the age of consent?

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:Rape requires force or coercion and, as such, is a crime of violence which should be punished by death.

Statutory "rape" is not forcible in any way, shape or form. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate, but inappropriate is a long way from criminal.

At what age would you have the age of consent?

I think 14 or 15 would be fine, 16 tops.

I think the age of the other person enters into the equation as well. I think an 18 year old HS senior or college freshman banging his 16 year old girlfriend should not be a crime.

Mouthe Breathers like Truman would prefer every fuckin' kid under the age of 18 take ridoline and saltpeter.

props to that kid for gettin a piece of ass and salvaging his parents current edition of the Sears' Catalog bra section.



fuck off.

smackaholic wrote:

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:Rape requires force or coercion and, as such, is a crime of violence which should be punished by death.

Statutory "rape" is not forcible in any way, shape or form. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate, but inappropriate is a long way from criminal.

At what age would you have the age of consent?

I think 14 or 15 would be fine, 16 tops.

I think the age of the other person enters into the equation as well. I think an 18 year old HS senior or college freshman banging his 16 year old girlfriend should not be a crime.

Lemme get this straight:

Your home state limits 16 year-old drivers to be accompanied by a parent, legal guardian, or certified trainer at all times; mandates the use of safety belts; and specifically forbids the use of all electronic communication devices while driving...

Yet you would unconditionally hand over the proverbial "keys to the car" to your 14 year-old son or daughter when it comes to sex?

I repeat: You truly are as fucked up as mvscal.

I'm sure mvscal is content in knowing that kid was out banging his 31 year old teacher instead of trying to get a little stinky pinky off his 16 year old daughter.

Truman wrote:

sackandballic wrote:i think it comes down to age.

consensually fukking a 16 year old is kinda dumb and shouldn't be condoned. but, it shouldn't be something you go to jail for.

Sixteen year-olds cannot legally drink, smoke, vote, die for their country OR give their consent.

Oh. So 16 year olds are mature enough to operate the most single most dangerous threat to public safety (a car) but for some unexplained reason they aren't mature enough to operate a cock or a pussy.

Makes perfect sense...

Sirfindafold wrote:I'm sure mvscal is content in knowing that kid was out banging his 31 year old teacher instead of trying to get a little stinky pinky off his 16 year old daughter.

mvscal is a proven sociopath. What's your excuse?

Since they're both of legal age and consenting adults, I agree that it should be perfectly legal for smackaholic to continue sucking mvscal's balls.

mvscal wrote:

Truman wrote:

sackandballic wrote:i think it comes down to age.

consensually fukking a 16 year old is kinda dumb and shouldn't be condoned. but, it shouldn't be something you go to jail for.

Sixteen year-olds cannot legally drink, smoke, vote, die for their country OR give their consent.

Oh. So 16 year olds are mature enough to operate the most single most dangerous threat to public safety (a car) but for some unexplained reason they aren't mature enough to operate a cock or a pussy.

Makes perfect sense...

Flip the keys to your 16 year-old for a solo cross-country run to see the folks back home and lemme know how that works for you.

indeed.

Sirfindafold wrote:I'm sure mvscal is content in knowing that kid was out banging his 31 year old teacher instead of trying to get a little stinky pinky off his 16 year old daughter.

Good point.

Truman wrote:nothing at all

That's what I thought. You have no problem with a 16 year old operating 2,000 lbs of steel moving 65 miles an hour but heaven forbid she should operate a 30 year old cock.

Hypocrite and a pathetically stupid one at that.

Question of Judgement, Loser, of which you have demonstrated is a virtue that you are clearly too brain-dead to perceive....

To summarize: Not only is it OK to kill a nine year-old little girl, it's OK to fuck her too.

Just die.

Truman wrote:Question of Judgement, Loser, of which you have demonstrated is a virtue that you are clearly too brain-dead to perceive....

To summarize: Not only is it OK to kill a nine year-old little girl, it's OK to fuck her too.

Just die.

Huh? I guess you aren't even trying to make sense anymore.

Melt on, brah...

mvscal wrote:
Huh? I guess you aren't even trying to make sense anymore.

Interesting take, given your defense of the indefensible.

Never argue with your parents, drunks OR proven sociopaths....

...or morons from Kansas City who make no sense at all.

Sirfindafold wrote:now fuck off.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I didn't "forget" anything, and no I was not going for a FTFA you stupid, vile, self-loathing, racist fuck.

You forgot the statutory part.

All rape is statutory you self-fisting gabbon.

Your point? The elements of the offenses are quite different.