What kind of issue? That a man would be more attracted to a younger woman compared to old hags? Quite a difference between a 17 year old and a 12 year old. People so grossed out over age gaps must have no concept of history and what "normal" marraige arrangements were like for literally thousands of years up until recent...
As someone who was once a 17 year old girl, ICK. Yuck. Gtfoh. 56 is like a fucking grandpa to a 17 year old. And is gross af. And as someone who also has a 16 yr old on her way to being 17, they’re still a child. And if a 56 year old was trying to get on her, my husband would murder him. Those marriage arrangements you speak of were for significantly smaller age gaps, like men in their 20s. You’re obviously sympathetic because you’re also sick in the head?
So YOU think "yuck." That's your prerogative. What about the millions of 17 year olds over the decades abd centuries who didn't think "yuck"? "Yuck" is a subjective term. "Yuck" does not always equal criminal nor immoral. No, throughout history 30-40 years were quite commonplace. In 20th century western society, that gap has certainly narrowed. In America for instance, it would be far more likely that 15-17 year olds would have relationships and marry early 20s. But age gaps absolutely still happen. 23 year olds marrying 45 year olds, especially when money is a factor. You're looking at an arbitrary factor as a rule of generalization for what you perceive to be "yucky." Again, that's YOUR opinion. Societies and cultures establish laws, which must conform with natural and moral law. The Bible doesn't specify that people must be at least 18 to marry or that the age gaps must be within 20 years. Civil law permits teenagers to marry, even somebody 20 years older, but in most cases only with permission of the parents. And yet our laws treat teenagers as "adults" in some cases but not others. Apparently a 14 year old can murder their unborn child because they are "adults" but they can't choose with whom they will have sex? We may think "yucky" or better, why is that unmarried girl having sex without being married? But those aren't the laws. You can't call somebody criminal if they've not committed a crime. Again, if it was nonconsensual, rape, abuse, psychological intimidation, etc then yes, we've got a problem.
Pedophilia is a severe mental illness and a violation of natural, moral, and civil law when acted upon. But a 17 year old is not a child. 17 year olds drive cars, have jobs, can legally sign contracts on their own. 17 year olds volunteered for the military and died on the beaches of Normandy. 17 year olds got and get married and raise kids in loving families. If your only focus here is the age gap being "yucky" and are incapable of more complex thought, I can't help you. But just because you're incapable of complex thought, that doesn't justify you slandering people by wrongly accusing them of condoning or enabling pedophilia. I look forward to your apology.
I agree. My aunt was married at 16, back in the early '70s. But she married a guy not too much older than her. My grandmother had a very old-fashioned farmer mentality about daughters, and encouraged this. Turns out the man she married became a weird cultist and she had to divorce him. Sessions's senate seat was lost to a Democrat because the candidate Trump endorsed lost face when it came out that he had been targeting teenage girls for marriage, back in the '70s. "Magadeburger" has a point about 17 being an arbitrary age (here in Japan the age of consent is 16 or so), but it shows the mentality of a 56 year old man who targets teenagers like this. I'm 45 and I could never think of trying to hook up with a woman in her 20s, much less a teenager. "I think it's important to listen to music that is popular. That way you know it's good." --- "That's nice, honey. Now eat your vegetables." God, I'd go crazy.
I am 56 years old. When I look at a 17 year old I see a little girl not something I want to get with. You can take your normalizing of pedos and shove it right up your ass.
YOU see a "girl" but that's a matter of perspective. The objective reality is that a 17 year old is not a child. We can talk about whether or not it's unwise or "creepy" for an older man to have any business flirting with or pursuing a young woman half his age, but there's a distinct line between "unusual" and criminal, imprudent and immoral. Words mean things. Leftists love to call everyone racist. It's tempting to just call a Democrat a pedophile, and ignore the more complex facts of the case. We are supposed to be better than that.
He very well might, and might even like boys, as differentiated from men... boys are children, which is most commonly understood to mean males under age 15 or so. Older than that would be more accurate describes as "young adults" etc.
A 17 year old is not a child. Pedophilia is quite literally, sexual attraction towards children. Could it possibly have been abuse of power, of psychological abuse? Sure. Could have been. Was it in this case? Doesn't appear to be the case.
I had to read up on this as breaking up families is definitely bad, but pardoning pedophilia is equally bad as it could lead to a slippery slope. If you say 17 is okay and it’s normalized, then the next target will be 16, and each subsequent normalization will lead to trying to lower that number.
Anyway, reading up on Morrissey’s background, I’m not sure he’s going to be a good father figure.
This from Wikipedia:
Morrissey has fathered a total of six children by four different women, including his wife Myrna Pride. Morrissey married Pride on June 11, 2016, when she was 21 years old, in Varina, Virginia. Pride is his first wife and they have an age difference of 39 years.
I’m pretty sure in 3-4 years, he’s going to cheat on his current wife. It was only with the threat of arrests that he was forced to marry her.
You might not like it, but nothing in man's law or God's Law forbids said acts. You may disregard the entirety of human history and biological, psychological facts of science, and submit the only argument that it's "icky" but that's childlike thinking, yet you present yourself to be an adult. Your comments here seem to indicate otherwise, at least in terms of your mental state. I have one account on these boards. Why would I need more? If there are multiple thumbs down on your bot like comments, that just means other posters have also recognized your failure at persuasive argumentation or that you're an ad.
You have a problem sir. You really do. Makingb17 the age of consent is arbitrary and doesn't mean the girl is capable of the adjustments for a relationship with an old man.
As for the pardon, he already served his jail time and the victim and her mother both requested the pardon if that matters for folks.
But as for DJT, his dad wished Ghislaine Maxwell well before her trial and Matt Gaetz just had his girlfriend testify to the grand jury in his sex trafficking case, so pretending this only occurs in one party is silly.
VA's laws on the topic are quite interesting and somewhat confusing and contradictory.
For instance, it definitely states that sexual intercourse with any person under age 13 is rape. There is no "consensual" provision. It's black and white. Why? 13 and under are children. That's not up for debate. There is no gray area.
As for age of consent, well that's complicated...
*§ 18.2-370. Taking indecent liberties with children; penalties.
A. Any person 18 years of age or over, who, with lascivious intent, knowingly and intentionally commits any of the following acts with any child under the age of 15 years is guilty of a Class 5 felony
[list of various sexual acts]*
So it would appear that for sexual intercourse, the age of 15 is the age of consent. Under 15, it's a felony.
18.2-370 appears to be dealing with other circumstances, for example the creation of "delinquency" and the factor of whether it's between a spouse not. One reading would be that if a 45 year old is married to a 16 year old, they can legally have consentual sex, BUT if they aren't married then they can't. Interesting practical way of attempting to permit "gray" areas of age, yet age still being arbitrary... why is age an issue when not married, but not an issue when married? Also begs the question, if the guy does end up marrying the 17 year old, does that not achieve what the law aims to accomplish, i.e. protect the sanctity of marriage and sexual consent?
Another interesting VA statue, seemingly rarely enforced:
§ 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.
Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
And Xiden better watch himself with the kissing... if that tongue of his penetrates... 😳
§ 18.2-370.6. Penetration of mouth of child with lascivious intent; penalty.
Any person 18 years of age or older who, with lascivious intent, kisses a child under the age of 13 on the mouth while knowingly and intentionally penetrating the mouth of such child with his tongue is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Some offenses should never be allowed to be pardoned legally by anyone unless they’ve been sent to a judge. Treason and sex crimes shouldn’t be pardoned unless proof is found that they were not real charges.
17 is not a "child." 15 year olds were legally getting married for the entirety of human history up until the past 30 years. This isn't "pedophilia." The only way it was a crime is if it wasn't consensual.
Sorry frens, but Don Jr didn't look too hard into the facts of the case. Goes to show can't just accept every tweet or headline without doing your own research.
Apparently the guy was 56 when she was 17. Sure. Seems kind of gross... Is that the guy with the old balls? 👴🏻😳😂 But does that factor alone make it abuse, criminal, and/or immoral? If I were a 17 year old girl, unless the dude was rich and HOT, yeah, I probably wouldn't want any of that either... old balls... barf... but what if he was well off attractive, kind, caring, generous, loving? Do you see the point? We can't just go around calling things that SOME people might think "icky" to be pedophilia, a serious issue. Don't want to become like the left the way they resort to calling every racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic etc.
And in the past, if a teen got married, it was either to another teen, or perhaps someone in their low 20s, any older than low 20s, and it would be verging on pedophilia.
In response to your sarcasm, be careful to avoid the fallacy of generalization...
Something not being "the norm" doesn't make it criminal or immoral. If a 16 year old could get married in the 70s (yes, it happened, not always, not normally, but ot did happen and wasn't called pedophilia) and it was legal and not considered immoral, then why now should it be considered otherwise?
Oh they weren't? 16 year olds were never courting or marrying 56 year olds? Has all of your knowledge of history consisted only of stories since the year 2000?
"Normal" is a relative term. If a Christian lived amongst Muslims in 1740s Arabia, and did not have multiple wives (many of them quite younger than 18), that man would not be considered "normal" by that community's standards. In Portland, being "weird" is "normal" to people from Portland but they are weird to most of the rest of the USA who think they are weird.
For the sake of this discussion of serious matters, let's try to stick with using objective, absolute terms... for instance, like criminal, illegal, moral, immoral, sin etc. "Normal" just doesn't quite cut it.
Holy shit, why are you so hell bent on justifying this? You do realize that Epstein was caught procuring girls in this age group to older men, right? We anons know there’s much younger children involved, but this age group is what he and Ghislaine Maxwell were arrested for. And there has been public outrage over it. Your incessant need to defend older men wanting to be with girls this age and trying to say it’s normal is right in line with the men who slept with Epstein’s girls. They may look old enough to you, but they’re still developing mentally and emotionally and a man 40 years older than her that wants to be with her is predatory. He wants to use his age and experience to manipulate and control her. Our society has gotten really morally bankrupt over time, but the one thing that has evolved is the fact we can acknowledge this age shouldn’t be married off to much older men and there’s now laws in place prohibiting it. I’m not going to disagree with you that pedophilia by definition is attraction to children, but older people wanting to be with teens is also moral degeneracy for the reasons I touched on. If a 24 year old is with a 17 year old I’m not too perturbed because they’re so close in mental and emotional maturity it’s really not a big deal. However someone close to 60 looking at a 16-17 year old and actually acting on is fucking disgusting. Again, my husband is wouldnt think twice to kill a 56 year old man who attempted to touch his daughter.
I'm hell bent on making sure that people here, who project themselves to be wiser followers of the "GREAT AWAKENING", avoid acting like the irrational retards whom they call evil enemies. Most of the respondents on this thread have refused to present anything resembling logical thought. It's nothing but irrational, emotional unhinged personal perspectives eg "OMG ICKY."
My point is that the OP is clickbait. The headline is misleading. Don Jr. fell for the original clickbait and now people here have fallen for it, and instead of admitting that they didn't do their research, they are doubling down with absurd nonarguments. Contrary to the headline, the case in question wasn't definitively an issue of pedophilia. Regardless of the man's age, a 17 year old is not a child, let alone a prepubescent child. It doesn't meet the medical or legal definition of pedophilia. Does that mean that the man in question isn't a pedophile? Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn't. But based on the details of the circumstances of this case alone, no rational human being could arrive at such an objective conclusion. So unless there's more evidence of this man actually expressing pedophilic sentiments or engaging in pedophilic activities, you know, with CHILDREN, then it's just as wrong to call him a pedophile as it is for leftists to falsely label people as "racist" without evidence.
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking, a criminal, immoral act, regardless of the act of the victims. Granted, most states have more severe punishments for the younger the age of the victim due to measurably more harm done to more vulnerable people. What Epstein did wasn't just trafficking, but grooming, psychological and physical manipulation of girls and young women (perhaps boys and young men as well?). Were some of Epstein's clients pedophiles? Possibly, even highly likely. But again, this is all irrelevant to the case in the OP.
I'm not defending older men's desires and acting upon sexually exploiting children. That's pedophilia, which is illegal and immoral. But the case in question isn't definitively pedophilia. Why are people here so hell bent on purporting it to be? Because the clickbait is designed to make them say "AH! Sick Dem pardons Sick Dem, cause ThEy'rE aLL SiCk!" It's these kind of retarded, child-like statements that make normies write you off as being stupid "conspiracy theorists."
a man 40 years older than her that wants to be with her is predatory. He wants to use his age and experience to manipulate and control her
Unless you have the divine power to read hearts and minds, what you've stated is conjecture, speculation. You assume something to be the truth, that might not be. Perhaps a 40 year old was never able to find love and wants to have children and a family, so logically rules out women 30+ because of the increase in birth complications? Perhaps all the 20-29 year old women near him are so tied up in going to college, focusing on careers, their own self-centered STRONG WOMAN agenda pushed by the neo-feminist left? Along comes a non hag, younger woman who wants to have a family, wants children, wants to be a wife, accepts the age difference because the man is a loving, kind man. Are you to say that such a hypothetical situation never happened before and cannot happen? You're making an objective truth claim, without any substantial argumentative backing, while focusing only on arbitrary standards like age (again, if she was 18, there is no legal challenge, there is no story) and subjective perspectives of what you find to be "icky" and "disgusting." These are not legal standards. They aren't moral standards. They are your feelings.
Is this guy pedophile? Possibly. Do the circumstances of this case prove him to be? No. If you're so hell bent on believing him to be a pedophile, do some research and provide some definitive evidence to prove it.
Your reference to women over 30 being hags reflects your maturity level and also your need to justify your stance on 17 year olds being a-ok to bang if you’re an old man. You’re the one looking a fool here, dude. Sure, you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile but blowing up this thread with your arguments calling 17 a “non-hag” and arguing that it’s natural and been down for millennia is not a good look. Virginia Guiffre was 17. I’m sure her abusers were happy she wasn’t a hag, too.
Are you really this naive? By your logic, everything going on in this country about jabs and masks are consensual because nobody has been physically forced to take a jab, and nobody has physically forced a mask on someones face. Sheesh.
Just so you know, No normal 17 year old want to have sex with some old grandpa, grandpa. It appears that someone is trying to abuse the system that was put in place to protect this young girl. Oh, and what a surprise, its a dem politician.
Your comparison to masks and jabs presents a false equivalence.
"Normal"... what is "normal" to you might not be normal to others. So every 17 year old girl over the course of human history that slept with and/or married an older man was "abnormal"? According to what set of standards, aside from you subjective perspective?
If lawmakers and society is to assert that no 17 year should ever be considered an adult, then that standard should be held to consistently. In which case, then why would they have been permitted to give her a job in his office if she was not an adult? Yes, the system would have failed. And yet, she was given a job because the law permitted it on the basis that a 17 year old was enough of an adult to have a job.
I'd bet you there are likely as many actual Republican pedophiles as Democrat pedophiles. Sexual mental illnesses are rampant. But in this case, immediately jumping to the conclusion that this was a purely political move, regardless of the evidence of the case indicating a much more complex situation, would be quite unwise and even hypocritical. We can never stood to the same tactics used often by leftists.
You are an enabler. And you are dead wrong. Arbitrary laws of adulthood don't make it right.
My grandma was 14, there was a depression MD she married a 35 yo. I still think my grandfather was fucked up for doing that. And a 55 yo has to groom a 17 yo period. It's predatory period Nd you normalizing it doesn't change that.
Arbitrary laws of adulthood also don't make it wrong. Age is indeed arbitrary. Thank you for agreeing to one of my main points. If she was 18, would you be so emotionally invested? Would this be news? Nope. Why? Because under the law, it's not a crime. In many states, age of consent is 16 and 17. So crime in some places but not others? Why the different standards? Crime in some centuries but not others? Why the different standards? What are they based on? Put forth an actual argument. Turn your brain on.
Please spare me the "omg patriarchal abusers" leftist talk. Not every "old man" is a manipulative predator. If you want to think your grandpa was fucked up, that's your prerogative. I dare you to say the same about Mary and Jospeh... you know, the earthly parents of God Himself. Silly teenager and old dude cause they did something that doesn't jive with our MoDerN PrOgreSSiVe sTanDarDs!
Can't tell if these kinds of posters are bots, shills, or really just that incapable of complex thought...
See, now this is an example of how humans can and should be capable of engaging in civil, thought provoking, intellectual, purposeful discussion. Good frens make good frens, fren 😁
And yes, could just be falling for clickbait and unwilling to admit it. I will admit that I immediately updooted the OP before reading into the facts of the case and situation, which is quite significantly more complex than "dem gov bails out evil dem pedo man"
Thinking that you are capacity for complex thought is your defining character is how you allow leftists to gaslight you. I have seen this again and again. Maybe once we cleanup the world of evil and then everyone participates in society in good faith, these kind of debates have a place. Right now, all I see is a convicted pedophile being pardoned. If you cannot capitalise on that to help our fight then you are on the wrong side.
Except that by definition, he didn't engage in pedophilic acts. A 17 year old, is not a child. Have not people you side with, been wrongfully convicted? Or are the opinions of juries and judges supreme over truth?
Or are the opinions of juries and judges supreme over truth?
Of all the judgements I would like to review and figure out, the case of a 56 yearold having sex with his 17 year old will not even make it to that list. Question is, why are you so passionate about this particular case? Do you know something about the guy we are not aware of? Was he fighting the Cabal and got set up? Thats the only possibility I can imagine for someone to get all worked up - unless there is a personal resonance to this.
Don't know him, or anything about him. Don't really care about him. But I do care about the truth and can't stand fake news. Throwing around the charge of pedophile is quite serious. It should be supported by facts. The fact that the girl was 17 and not a child, alone casts doubt on the charge because again, a 17 year old is not a child... we shouldn't have to keep repeating the definition of pedophilia. And then to find out that the guy married her and seemingly they have a healthy family relationship together with their children, clearly this was a far more complex case than the clickbait headline indicated.
What I care about is that we don't stoop to the same tactics as our foes. What I can about is that we do the research, get the facts, and draw rational conclusions instead of just blindly accepting everything we see from "trusted sources" like Don Jr. in this case. We're better than that.
I think we need to stop letting them push us back into the 2 party paradigm.
Trump won by taking an independent stance, taking the best aspects from both parties. and could have broke that system and I hope that is what this is leading to but when these people go back to this low level energy kind of attacks from the two-party perspective it troubles me.
I don't want to start a fight over saying that but I think we need to really check ourselves on shitting on the dems and shit libs and actually name names and not even acknowledge the old parties and ideologies unless absolutely necessary.
We have to win hearts and minds back. We all have much more in common than not and we can reach people on an individual basis.
Ah, music to my ears. I'm never gonna be a republican or Democrat ever.
Not a Trumper or a MAGA party guy. My vote is not guaranteed. On fact this last time nevada didn't even count it. So nobody guaranteed my vote and now I know it was never worth a fuck to begin with.
Because of the Democrat party's stance on abortion, I, as a Christian, can NEVER vote for ANY Democrat. I consider support for abortion to be the ultimate litmus test of anyone running for office (test of their basic morality), and even if the person running as a Democrat says they are pro-life, the fact that they align with the Democrat party removes them from consideration for my vote.
Yeah, this is getting lost in the static...Ralph Northam was, and is, an ABSOLUTE WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT. Worst ever governor in VA. A lying scumbag who has harmed VA for than any other leader.
Right. Honestly I don't care if he was the one in blackface or the KKK robe for Halloween. The holiday is all for shits 'n giggles anyway, so I welcome poor taste. I just want shitlibs to remain consistent and crucify their own for committing what they view as a "sin." Instead they just look away when it comes to the likes of Northram and Justin Turdpole. Hypocrites. If he was a Republican, he'd been forced to resign long ago, I bet.
If, as Americans, we had any balls, these people would be strung up. How have we sunk so low as human beings we can't even protect the most innocent among us. How am I supposed to stand before God on judgement day and say I allowed this to happen on my watch?
If my kid were the victim i would hunt that pedo down and finish him. All pedos need to be hunted down and exterminated. Period. And those that protect them by the law or any other way can get taken out too. They do not deserve to continue in our world....
There should absolutely be some things that can not be pardoned, stealing a child's Innocence is one of them. I'll chip in on the father's legal defense for temporary insanity when he sees this p.o.s.
I am giving you an upvote because at 17, and 4 kids later, that should matter.
But…
56 to 17 indicates an issue.
What kind of issue? That a man would be more attracted to a younger woman compared to old hags? Quite a difference between a 17 year old and a 12 year old. People so grossed out over age gaps must have no concept of history and what "normal" marraige arrangements were like for literally thousands of years up until recent...
As someone who was once a 17 year old girl, ICK. Yuck. Gtfoh. 56 is like a fucking grandpa to a 17 year old. And is gross af. And as someone who also has a 16 yr old on her way to being 17, they’re still a child. And if a 56 year old was trying to get on her, my husband would murder him. Those marriage arrangements you speak of were for significantly smaller age gaps, like men in their 20s. You’re obviously sympathetic because you’re also sick in the head?
So YOU think "yuck." That's your prerogative. What about the millions of 17 year olds over the decades abd centuries who didn't think "yuck"? "Yuck" is a subjective term. "Yuck" does not always equal criminal nor immoral. No, throughout history 30-40 years were quite commonplace. In 20th century western society, that gap has certainly narrowed. In America for instance, it would be far more likely that 15-17 year olds would have relationships and marry early 20s. But age gaps absolutely still happen. 23 year olds marrying 45 year olds, especially when money is a factor. You're looking at an arbitrary factor as a rule of generalization for what you perceive to be "yucky." Again, that's YOUR opinion. Societies and cultures establish laws, which must conform with natural and moral law. The Bible doesn't specify that people must be at least 18 to marry or that the age gaps must be within 20 years. Civil law permits teenagers to marry, even somebody 20 years older, but in most cases only with permission of the parents. And yet our laws treat teenagers as "adults" in some cases but not others. Apparently a 14 year old can murder their unborn child because they are "adults" but they can't choose with whom they will have sex? We may think "yucky" or better, why is that unmarried girl having sex without being married? But those aren't the laws. You can't call somebody criminal if they've not committed a crime. Again, if it was nonconsensual, rape, abuse, psychological intimidation, etc then yes, we've got a problem.
Pedophilia is a severe mental illness and a violation of natural, moral, and civil law when acted upon. But a 17 year old is not a child. 17 year olds drive cars, have jobs, can legally sign contracts on their own. 17 year olds volunteered for the military and died on the beaches of Normandy. 17 year olds got and get married and raise kids in loving families. If your only focus here is the age gap being "yucky" and are incapable of more complex thought, I can't help you. But just because you're incapable of complex thought, that doesn't justify you slandering people by wrongly accusing them of condoning or enabling pedophilia. I look forward to your apology.
Lmao. No. Not gonna apologize to your Epstein sympathetic shill ass.
I agree. My aunt was married at 16, back in the early '70s. But she married a guy not too much older than her. My grandmother had a very old-fashioned farmer mentality about daughters, and encouraged this. Turns out the man she married became a weird cultist and she had to divorce him. Sessions's senate seat was lost to a Democrat because the candidate Trump endorsed lost face when it came out that he had been targeting teenage girls for marriage, back in the '70s. "Magadeburger" has a point about 17 being an arbitrary age (here in Japan the age of consent is 16 or so), but it shows the mentality of a 56 year old man who targets teenagers like this. I'm 45 and I could never think of trying to hook up with a woman in her 20s, much less a teenager. "I think it's important to listen to music that is popular. That way you know it's good." --- "That's nice, honey. Now eat your vegetables." God, I'd go crazy.
I am 56 years old. When I look at a 17 year old I see a little girl not something I want to get with. You can take your normalizing of pedos and shove it right up your ass.
YOU see a "girl" but that's a matter of perspective. The objective reality is that a 17 year old is not a child. We can talk about whether or not it's unwise or "creepy" for an older man to have any business flirting with or pursuing a young woman half his age, but there's a distinct line between "unusual" and criminal, imprudent and immoral. Words mean things. Leftists love to call everyone racist. It's tempting to just call a Democrat a pedophile, and ignore the more complex facts of the case. We are supposed to be better than that.
Sorry but the objective reality is that a 17 year old IS a child.
The entirety of human history says otherwise. If your teenagers still act like children, that's just a poor reflection of your weak parenting.
If you’re attracted to a teenager, that’s a reflection of your moral degeneracy.
Thanks and ditto. If you can't find a real woman at that age you go without.
He very well might, and might even like boys, as differentiated from men... boys are children, which is most commonly understood to mean males under age 15 or so. Older than that would be more accurate describes as "young adults" etc.
17 is predatory. He likely groomed her. That's a pedophile.
A 17 year old is not a child. Pedophilia is quite literally, sexual attraction towards children. Could it possibly have been abuse of power, of psychological abuse? Sure. Could have been. Was it in this case? Doesn't appear to be the case.
Depends on the age of consent. It can be different in different states.
When I was 22 I dated a 40 year old, I am aware of the term.
She wasn’t 56 and I wasn’t 17.
56 and 17 is just fucking gross.
Would love to see some of your porn searches. I’m seeing some skeletons coming out lately.
I had to read up on this as breaking up families is definitely bad, but pardoning pedophilia is equally bad as it could lead to a slippery slope. If you say 17 is okay and it’s normalized, then the next target will be 16, and each subsequent normalization will lead to trying to lower that number.
Anyway, reading up on Morrissey’s background, I’m not sure he’s going to be a good father figure.
This from Wikipedia:
I’m pretty sure in 3-4 years, he’s going to cheat on his current wife. It was only with the threat of arrests that he was forced to marry her.
How long before he pedos his children if he hasn't already.
Geez that's a major fuck up. This alone can red pill some people
Demonstrating the absurd.
"The conviction stems from an illicit relationship Morrissey, then 56, had with his then 17-year-old law office intern..."
These people are sick
How is a consensual relationship between two people of age, sick?
What posts? Defend your accusation.
You might not like it, but nothing in man's law or God's Law forbids said acts. You may disregard the entirety of human history and biological, psychological facts of science, and submit the only argument that it's "icky" but that's childlike thinking, yet you present yourself to be an adult. Your comments here seem to indicate otherwise, at least in terms of your mental state. I have one account on these boards. Why would I need more? If there are multiple thumbs down on your bot like comments, that just means other posters have also recognized your failure at persuasive argumentation or that you're an ad.
🤖🤖🤖🤖
Poor ads. Amirite?
u/v8power
Calm down and keep it civil.
You have a problem sir. You really do. Makingb17 the age of consent is arbitrary and doesn't mean the girl is capable of the adjustments for a relationship with an old man.
Bearing false witness against others is sin. Repent.
they were not of age. Sex with a 17 year old in Virginia is the crime of contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. https://www.virginiacriminallawfirm.com/practice-areas/juvenile-criminal-cases/contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor-18-2-371
As for the pardon, he already served his jail time and the victim and her mother both requested the pardon if that matters for folks.
But as for DJT, his dad wished Ghislaine Maxwell well before her trial and Matt Gaetz just had his girlfriend testify to the grand jury in his sex trafficking case, so pretending this only occurs in one party is silly.
VA's laws on the topic are quite interesting and somewhat confusing and contradictory.
For instance, it definitely states that sexual intercourse with any person under age 13 is rape. There is no "consensual" provision. It's black and white. Why? 13 and under are children. That's not up for debate. There is no gray area.
As for age of consent, well that's complicated...
*§ 18.2-370. Taking indecent liberties with children; penalties. A. Any person 18 years of age or over, who, with lascivious intent, knowingly and intentionally commits any of the following acts with any child under the age of 15 years is guilty of a Class 5 felony
[list of various sexual acts]*
So it would appear that for sexual intercourse, the age of 15 is the age of consent. Under 15, it's a felony.
18.2-370 appears to be dealing with other circumstances, for example the creation of "delinquency" and the factor of whether it's between a spouse not. One reading would be that if a 45 year old is married to a 16 year old, they can legally have consentual sex, BUT if they aren't married then they can't. Interesting practical way of attempting to permit "gray" areas of age, yet age still being arbitrary... why is age an issue when not married, but not an issue when married? Also begs the question, if the guy does end up marrying the 17 year old, does that not achieve what the law aims to accomplish, i.e. protect the sanctity of marriage and sexual consent?
Another interesting VA statue, seemingly rarely enforced:
§ 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty. Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
And Xiden better watch himself with the kissing... if that tongue of his penetrates... 😳
§ 18.2-370.6. Penetration of mouth of child with lascivious intent; penalty. Any person 18 years of age or older who, with lascivious intent, kisses a child under the age of 13 on the mouth while knowingly and intentionally penetrating the mouth of such child with his tongue is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Some offenses should never be allowed to be pardoned legally by anyone unless they’ve been sent to a judge. Treason and sex crimes shouldn’t be pardoned unless proof is found that they were not real charges.
Why would we invest pardon power in judges?
In this case, there was a trial and a jail sentence. So the charges were real and the time was served.
Freemasonics
17 is not a "child." 15 year olds were legally getting married for the entirety of human history up until the past 30 years. This isn't "pedophilia." The only way it was a crime is if it wasn't consensual.
Sorry frens, but Don Jr didn't look too hard into the facts of the case. Goes to show can't just accept every tweet or headline without doing your own research.
If I'm not mistaken there was a +-40 yr age gap ...
Apparently the guy was 56 when she was 17. Sure. Seems kind of gross... Is that the guy with the old balls? 👴🏻😳😂 But does that factor alone make it abuse, criminal, and/or immoral? If I were a 17 year old girl, unless the dude was rich and HOT, yeah, I probably wouldn't want any of that either... old balls... barf... but what if he was well off attractive, kind, caring, generous, loving? Do you see the point? We can't just go around calling things that SOME people might think "icky" to be pedophilia, a serious issue. Don't want to become like the left the way they resort to calling every racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic etc.
Yeah I know when I was sixteen I was looking to date someone old enough to be my grandpa, that's on every teenage girls to do list.
Fyi in the 70s and 80s getting married at fifteen and sixteen wasn't the norm.
And in the past, if a teen got married, it was either to another teen, or perhaps someone in their low 20s, any older than low 20s, and it would be verging on pedophilia.
In response to your sarcasm, be careful to avoid the fallacy of generalization...
Something not being "the norm" doesn't make it criminal or immoral. If a 16 year old could get married in the 70s (yes, it happened, not always, not normally, but ot did happen and wasn't called pedophilia) and it was legal and not considered immoral, then why now should it be considered otherwise?
You're correct but those sixteen year olds weren't dating or marrying men 40 years older than them either.
Even you have to admit that's not normal, but keep defending the creepo if you want.
Oh they weren't? 16 year olds were never courting or marrying 56 year olds? Has all of your knowledge of history consisted only of stories since the year 2000?
"Normal" is a relative term. If a Christian lived amongst Muslims in 1740s Arabia, and did not have multiple wives (many of them quite younger than 18), that man would not be considered "normal" by that community's standards. In Portland, being "weird" is "normal" to people from Portland but they are weird to most of the rest of the USA who think they are weird.
For the sake of this discussion of serious matters, let's try to stick with using objective, absolute terms... for instance, like criminal, illegal, moral, immoral, sin etc. "Normal" just doesn't quite cut it.
Holy shit, why are you so hell bent on justifying this? You do realize that Epstein was caught procuring girls in this age group to older men, right? We anons know there’s much younger children involved, but this age group is what he and Ghislaine Maxwell were arrested for. And there has been public outrage over it. Your incessant need to defend older men wanting to be with girls this age and trying to say it’s normal is right in line with the men who slept with Epstein’s girls. They may look old enough to you, but they’re still developing mentally and emotionally and a man 40 years older than her that wants to be with her is predatory. He wants to use his age and experience to manipulate and control her. Our society has gotten really morally bankrupt over time, but the one thing that has evolved is the fact we can acknowledge this age shouldn’t be married off to much older men and there’s now laws in place prohibiting it. I’m not going to disagree with you that pedophilia by definition is attraction to children, but older people wanting to be with teens is also moral degeneracy for the reasons I touched on. If a 24 year old is with a 17 year old I’m not too perturbed because they’re so close in mental and emotional maturity it’s really not a big deal. However someone close to 60 looking at a 16-17 year old and actually acting on is fucking disgusting. Again, my husband is wouldnt think twice to kill a 56 year old man who attempted to touch his daughter.
I'm hell bent on making sure that people here, who project themselves to be wiser followers of the "GREAT AWAKENING", avoid acting like the irrational retards whom they call evil enemies. Most of the respondents on this thread have refused to present anything resembling logical thought. It's nothing but irrational, emotional unhinged personal perspectives eg "OMG ICKY."
My point is that the OP is clickbait. The headline is misleading. Don Jr. fell for the original clickbait and now people here have fallen for it, and instead of admitting that they didn't do their research, they are doubling down with absurd nonarguments. Contrary to the headline, the case in question wasn't definitively an issue of pedophilia. Regardless of the man's age, a 17 year old is not a child, let alone a prepubescent child. It doesn't meet the medical or legal definition of pedophilia. Does that mean that the man in question isn't a pedophile? Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn't. But based on the details of the circumstances of this case alone, no rational human being could arrive at such an objective conclusion. So unless there's more evidence of this man actually expressing pedophilic sentiments or engaging in pedophilic activities, you know, with CHILDREN, then it's just as wrong to call him a pedophile as it is for leftists to falsely label people as "racist" without evidence.
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking, a criminal, immoral act, regardless of the act of the victims. Granted, most states have more severe punishments for the younger the age of the victim due to measurably more harm done to more vulnerable people. What Epstein did wasn't just trafficking, but grooming, psychological and physical manipulation of girls and young women (perhaps boys and young men as well?). Were some of Epstein's clients pedophiles? Possibly, even highly likely. But again, this is all irrelevant to the case in the OP.
I'm not defending older men's desires and acting upon sexually exploiting children. That's pedophilia, which is illegal and immoral. But the case in question isn't definitively pedophilia. Why are people here so hell bent on purporting it to be? Because the clickbait is designed to make them say "AH! Sick Dem pardons Sick Dem, cause ThEy'rE aLL SiCk!" It's these kind of retarded, child-like statements that make normies write you off as being stupid "conspiracy theorists."
Unless you have the divine power to read hearts and minds, what you've stated is conjecture, speculation. You assume something to be the truth, that might not be. Perhaps a 40 year old was never able to find love and wants to have children and a family, so logically rules out women 30+ because of the increase in birth complications? Perhaps all the 20-29 year old women near him are so tied up in going to college, focusing on careers, their own self-centered STRONG WOMAN agenda pushed by the neo-feminist left? Along comes a non hag, younger woman who wants to have a family, wants children, wants to be a wife, accepts the age difference because the man is a loving, kind man. Are you to say that such a hypothetical situation never happened before and cannot happen? You're making an objective truth claim, without any substantial argumentative backing, while focusing only on arbitrary standards like age (again, if she was 18, there is no legal challenge, there is no story) and subjective perspectives of what you find to be "icky" and "disgusting." These are not legal standards. They aren't moral standards. They are your feelings.
Is this guy pedophile? Possibly. Do the circumstances of this case prove him to be? No. If you're so hell bent on believing him to be a pedophile, do some research and provide some definitive evidence to prove it.
Your reference to women over 30 being hags reflects your maturity level and also your need to justify your stance on 17 year olds being a-ok to bang if you’re an old man. You’re the one looking a fool here, dude. Sure, you’re correct this man wasn’t by definition a pedophile but blowing up this thread with your arguments calling 17 a “non-hag” and arguing that it’s natural and been down for millennia is not a good look. Virginia Guiffre was 17. I’m sure her abusers were happy she wasn’t a hag, too.
Are you really this naive? By your logic, everything going on in this country about jabs and masks are consensual because nobody has been physically forced to take a jab, and nobody has physically forced a mask on someones face. Sheesh.
Just so you know, No normal 17 year old want to have sex with some old grandpa, grandpa. It appears that someone is trying to abuse the system that was put in place to protect this young girl. Oh, and what a surprise, its a dem politician.
Your comparison to masks and jabs presents a false equivalence.
"Normal"... what is "normal" to you might not be normal to others. So every 17 year old girl over the course of human history that slept with and/or married an older man was "abnormal"? According to what set of standards, aside from you subjective perspective?
If lawmakers and society is to assert that no 17 year should ever be considered an adult, then that standard should be held to consistently. In which case, then why would they have been permitted to give her a job in his office if she was not an adult? Yes, the system would have failed. And yet, she was given a job because the law permitted it on the basis that a 17 year old was enough of an adult to have a job.
I'd bet you there are likely as many actual Republican pedophiles as Democrat pedophiles. Sexual mental illnesses are rampant. But in this case, immediately jumping to the conclusion that this was a purely political move, regardless of the evidence of the case indicating a much more complex situation, would be quite unwise and even hypocritical. We can never stood to the same tactics used often by leftists.
You are an enabler. And you are dead wrong. Arbitrary laws of adulthood don't make it right.
My grandma was 14, there was a depression MD she married a 35 yo. I still think my grandfather was fucked up for doing that. And a 55 yo has to groom a 17 yo period. It's predatory period Nd you normalizing it doesn't change that.
Arbitrary laws of adulthood also don't make it wrong. Age is indeed arbitrary. Thank you for agreeing to one of my main points. If she was 18, would you be so emotionally invested? Would this be news? Nope. Why? Because under the law, it's not a crime. In many states, age of consent is 16 and 17. So crime in some places but not others? Why the different standards? Crime in some centuries but not others? Why the different standards? What are they based on? Put forth an actual argument. Turn your brain on.
Please spare me the "omg patriarchal abusers" leftist talk. Not every "old man" is a manipulative predator. If you want to think your grandpa was fucked up, that's your prerogative. I dare you to say the same about Mary and Jospeh... you know, the earthly parents of God Himself. Silly teenager and old dude cause they did something that doesn't jive with our MoDerN PrOgreSSiVe sTanDarDs!
Can't tell if these kinds of posters are bots, shills, or really just that incapable of complex thought...
See, now this is an example of how humans can and should be capable of engaging in civil, thought provoking, intellectual, purposeful discussion. Good frens make good frens, fren 😁
And yes, could just be falling for clickbait and unwilling to admit it. I will admit that I immediately updooted the OP before reading into the facts of the case and situation, which is quite significantly more complex than "dem gov bails out evil dem pedo man"
Thinking that you are capacity for complex thought is your defining character is how you allow leftists to gaslight you. I have seen this again and again. Maybe once we cleanup the world of evil and then everyone participates in society in good faith, these kind of debates have a place. Right now, all I see is a convicted pedophile being pardoned. If you cannot capitalise on that to help our fight then you are on the wrong side.
Except that by definition, he didn't engage in pedophilic acts. A 17 year old, is not a child. Have not people you side with, been wrongfully convicted? Or are the opinions of juries and judges supreme over truth?
Of all the judgements I would like to review and figure out, the case of a 56 yearold having sex with his 17 year old will not even make it to that list. Question is, why are you so passionate about this particular case? Do you know something about the guy we are not aware of? Was he fighting the Cabal and got set up? Thats the only possibility I can imagine for someone to get all worked up - unless there is a personal resonance to this.
Don't know him, or anything about him. Don't really care about him. But I do care about the truth and can't stand fake news. Throwing around the charge of pedophile is quite serious. It should be supported by facts. The fact that the girl was 17 and not a child, alone casts doubt on the charge because again, a 17 year old is not a child... we shouldn't have to keep repeating the definition of pedophilia. And then to find out that the guy married her and seemingly they have a healthy family relationship together with their children, clearly this was a far more complex case than the clickbait headline indicated.
What I care about is that we don't stoop to the same tactics as our foes. What I can about is that we do the research, get the facts, and draw rational conclusions instead of just blindly accepting everything we see from "trusted sources" like Don Jr. in this case. We're better than that.
I think we need to stop letting them push us back into the 2 party paradigm. Trump won by taking an independent stance, taking the best aspects from both parties. and could have broke that system and I hope that is what this is leading to but when these people go back to this low level energy kind of attacks from the two-party perspective it troubles me.
I don't want to start a fight over saying that but I think we need to really check ourselves on shitting on the dems and shit libs and actually name names and not even acknowledge the old parties and ideologies unless absolutely necessary. We have to win hearts and minds back. We all have much more in common than not and we can reach people on an individual basis.
Ah, music to my ears. I'm never gonna be a republican or Democrat ever.
Not a Trumper or a MAGA party guy. My vote is not guaranteed. On fact this last time nevada didn't even count it. So nobody guaranteed my vote and now I know it was never worth a fuck to begin with.
Because of the Democrat party's stance on abortion, I, as a Christian, can NEVER vote for ANY Democrat. I consider support for abortion to be the ultimate litmus test of anyone running for office (test of their basic morality), and even if the person running as a Democrat says they are pro-life, the fact that they align with the Democrat party removes them from consideration for my vote.
Dead pedophiles don't reoffend... Change my mind...
Ralph Northram is the "We'll make sure the baby is kept comfortable before we kill it" guy who wore blackface.
Yeah, this is getting lost in the static...Ralph Northam was, and is, an ABSOLUTE WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT. Worst ever governor in VA. A lying scumbag who has harmed VA for than any other leader.
Right. Honestly I don't care if he was the one in blackface or the KKK robe for Halloween. The holiday is all for shits 'n giggles anyway, so I welcome poor taste. I just want shitlibs to remain consistent and crucify their own for committing what they view as a "sin." Instead they just look away when it comes to the likes of Northram and Justin Turdpole. Hypocrites. If he was a Republican, he'd been forced to resign long ago, I bet.
This is horrible. Tells me all I need to know about this scumbag!
If, as Americans, we had any balls, these people would be strung up. How have we sunk so low as human beings we can't even protect the most innocent among us. How am I supposed to stand before God on judgement day and say I allowed this to happen on my watch?
Good God these people are sick.
If my kid were the victim i would hunt that pedo down and finish him. All pedos need to be hunted down and exterminated. Period. And those that protect them by the law or any other way can get taken out too. They do not deserve to continue in our world....
The pedophilic ruling elite protect their own.
There should absolutely be some things that can not be pardoned, stealing a child's Innocence is one of them. I'll chip in on the father's legal defense for temporary insanity when he sees this p.o.s.
Man. He’s been hitting them extra hard lately. Good.
Would be a shame if someone Leo Frank'd this waste of skin.
get a rope - on second thought, get 2 ropes