mollag Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Surely the age of consent is moot, the girl did not consent hence the alcohol and drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oogie boogie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Hasn't the women said she doesn't want to testify / bring the charges forward? case ended. yes he shouldn't have done it, but at the time Hollywood was rife with that sort of behaviour. Jack Nicholson was a right fucker for the under ages apparently. You can't jail Nicholson, he was the Joker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Surely the age of consent is moot, the girl did not consent hence the alcohol and drugs. When I mentioned age of consent I was referring to line where child rape crosses into adult rape. Both abhorrent none the less. Hasn't the women said she doesn't want to testify / bring the charges forward? case ended. yes he shouldn't have done it, but at the time Hollywood was rife with that sort of behaviour. Jack Nicholson was a right fucker for the under ages apparently. You can't jail Nicholson, he was the Joker. Unfortunately, I think the time for her to drop the case has been and gone. As a minor I'm guessing at the time the decision not to press charges would have been the parents. And he was tried and convicted in a court of law which took the matter out of the "injured" parties hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 BUT: What was a 13-year old girl doing 'being photographed' by him. Where were the parents/chaperone? Was the child a wannabe model, offering anything she had for a shot at 'fame', or one of these 'Pageant' kids made up to look 30? Outrageous. He raped and buggered a 13 year old girl after feeding her drink and drugs. How on earth can you ever possibly offer any comment in mitigation? That is completely a outrageous thing to say. He's a filthy paedo in anyone's book. Yeah, except in countries where the legal age of consent is 13. Oh, so not everyones then. So it would appear that right and wrong are a geographical thing not just a straight forward right/wrong thing. And please before someone brakes a nail trying to speed type a response that I am paedo or a paedo sympathizer, I am just pointing out the Daily Wail mentallity that hboy is showing with his statement. "STRING 'EM UP". Hang on a minute. I'm a Daily Mail ranter because I said that I found the fact that a 44 year old man drugged and had anal sex with a 13 year old girl filthy paedophile activity? Even accepting your very tenuous argument about varying ages of consent in different countries by what yardstick would you not regard that as the activities of a predatory paedophile? I'm really dying to hear your response. What he did is vile and distasteful on any level. Even if, by your later example, the age of consent is 13 in Spain when [ever] would it be right or acceptable for a 44 year old man to drug and sodomise a 13 year old girl even if she was above the legal age of consent? How about never. However, its nice to hear a poster stand up for paedo's right though!! Well done brother I'm sure that all those filthy pervs who have dreamed about legally bumming a 13 year old are right behind your compelling argument (.... !!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 But he is and Artiste! surely he may be forgiven?------ string the tw@t up! [metaphorically of course] Did i not read that he had renaged on his judicial payements to the sodomised minor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Hang on a minute. I'm a Daily Mail ranter because I said that I found the fact that a 44 year old man drugged and had anal sex with a 13 year old girl filthy paedophile activity? Even accepting your very tenuous argument about varying ages of consent in different countries by what yardstick would you not regard that as the activities of a predatory paedophile? I'm really dying to hear your response. What he did is vile and distasteful on any level. Even if, by your later example, the age of consent is 13 in Spain when [ever] would it be right or acceptable for a 44 year old man to drug and sodomise a 13 year old girl even if she was above the legal age of consent? How about never. However, its nice to hear a poster stand up for paedo's right though!! Well done brother I'm sure that all those filthy pervs who have dreamed about legally bumming a 13 year old are right behind your compelling argument (.... !!) Poor hboy, in the race to rant at what I typed you missed the entire point of my post. I have stated a couple of times I am not in support or sympathize with paedophiles. What I said was that in other countries he would be tried just for rape, and the term paedophile would not apply. I'm not sure what your trying to say with your italics. Explain how I arguing for "Paedo's rights". Why don't you calm down, look at what people are typing before going off into rant mode. Again for the hard of reading and understanding... I DO NOT AND NEVER WILL CONDONE THE ACTS OF PAEDOPHILES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 What I said was that in other countries he would be tried just for rape, and the term paedophile would not apply. I'm not sure what your trying to say with your italics. Explain how I arguing for "Paedo's rights". Why don't you calm down, look at what people are typing before going off into rant mode. I'm sorry but yes having sex with a 13 year old is being a paedophile. Maybe you could read the dictionary definition for starters: "noun. an adult who is sexually attracted to children" So basically your flimsy argument is based around the fact that in some countries you believe that a 13 year old is not legally a child? Is that it? You also seem to believe that where that is the case having sex with a 13 year old is ok and you are not a paedophile (ie, someone sexually attracted to children) because its legal. Maybe you should move to Pakistan as you could also probably legally kill your wife by stoning for adultery. Its clearly ok to do it if its within the law. In fact you must believe that because you then said So it would appear that right and wrong are a geographical thing not just a straight forward right/wrong thing. To believe that you must be infinitely more stupid than your profile suggests as a 44 year old man having sex with a 13 year old in any culture or under any legal system is wrong, and distasteful, and paedophile activity. especially if drugs or drink are involved. Again for the hard of reading and understanding...I DO NOT AND NEVER WILL CONDONE THE ACTS OF PAEDOPHILES. And I'm apparently the ranter? Ha, ha ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 What I said was that in other countries he would be tried just for rape, and the term paedophile would not apply. I'm not sure what your trying to say with your italics. Explain how I arguing for "Paedo's rights". Why don't you calm down, look at what people are typing before going off into rant mode. I'm sorry but yes having sex with a 13 year old is being a paedophile. Maybe you could read the dictionary definition for starters: "noun. an adult who is sexually attracted to children" So basically your flimsy argument is based around the fact that in some countries you believe that a 13 year old is not legally a child? Is that it? You also seem to believe that where that is the case having sex with a 13 year old is ok because its legal. Maybe you should move to Pakistan as you could also probably legally kill your wife by stoning for adultery. Its clearly ok to do it if its within the law. You must be more stupid than your profile suggests. Again for the hard of reading and understanding...I DO NOT AND NEVER WILL CONDONE THE ACTS OF PAEDOPHILES. And I'm apparently the ranter? Ha, ha ... Sigh. 1. "noun. an adult who is sexually attracted to children". The law of the land decides who is a child and who is not. Soooo if a countries law states that 13 year olds can have sex...can you see where I am going with this or do you need the crayon version. 2. Just because the above statement is true it does not mean I agree with it. But then its all okay because hboy is here to tell every nation in the world how to make their laws to fit his sensabilities. 3. The reason I used caps on my closing statement is because you've got it into your head that I am supporting paedophiles and I was clarifying for you. So for one last time... I agree that Roman Polanski did indeed break the law by having sex with a 13 year old without her consent and that it was a disgusting act. I mearly pointed out that in other countries he would be charged with rape not the rape of a 13 year old. Therefore in some countries he would not be considered a paedophile. I did not suggest it was open season on 13 year olds like you are trying to say I have. You do really need to start thinking about what people type instead of getting your knickers in a twist if the first words on screen aren't "cut his bits off" or "string him up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The law of the land decides who is a child and who is not. Soooo if a countries law states that 13 year olds can have sex...can you see where I am going with this or do you need the crayon version. Actually I think peoples own morality decides what is a child or not don't you? Any 44 year old that thinks sex with a 13 year old is ok, legal or not, has something wrong with them (ie, they are sexually attracted to children, ie they are likely paedophiles). 2. Just because the above statement is true it does not mean I agree with it. But then its all okay because hboy is here to tell every nation in the world how to make their laws to fit his sensabilities. No, I'm merely pointing out that a) your argument is total toss and b) whether its legal or not its still morally wrong to most people, in most religions, and in most civilised societies. 3. The reason I used caps on my closing statement is because you've got it into your head that I am supporting paedophiles and I was clarifying for you. No the reason that you did that is that you are an angry internet ranter which is exactly what you accused me of being. I mearly pointed out that in other countries he would be charged with rape not the rape of a 13 year old. Not many at all. I think most countries would find sexual contact with a 13 year old thoroughly reprehensible Therefore in some countries he would not be considered a paedophile. I think that he still would in most countries to be honest. Two 13 year olds having sex legally, or even two teenagers having sex with each other, is much different to a 44 year old and a 13 year old having sex. The older person is still sexually attracted to children. Is he not? Which makes him a paedophile regardless of the age of consent. Just because 13 is the age of consent does not mean that a grown man who makes a habit of having sex with sexually immature girls is not a peadophile. You do really need to start thinking about what people type instead of getting your knickers in a twist if the first words on screen aren't "cut his bits off" or "string him up". Pots and kettles pal. You should read your posts most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Actually the average of consent in Europe is 15.5. With Spain being at 13 and the Vatican state being 12. You know the Vatican, the headquaters of the Catholic Church. It is also worthy of note that 19 of the 44 European states having the 14 year old age of consent. 21 out of the 44 European of the states have an age of consent of 14 or lower. Kazakhstan, Malta and Turkey have an age of consent of 18. So your comment about going to other countries to stone women (obviously a remark about middle eastern countries) has about as much weight as the rest of the rubbish you have produced. Clearly you need to get your facts right before going off on a rather nasty attack against another poster who was dealing in facts, not the emotive language you have been using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Actually the average of consent in Europe is 15.5. With Spain being at 13 and the Vatican state being 12. You know the Vatican, the headquaters of the Catholic Church. It is also worthy of note that 19 of the 44 European states having the 14 year old age of consent. 21 out of the 44 European of the states have an age of consent of 14 or lower. Kazakhstan, Malta and Turkey have an age of consent of 18. So your comment about going to other countries to stone women (obviously a remark about middle eastern countries) has about as much weight as the rest of the rubbish you have produced. Clearly you need to get your facts right before going off on a rather nasty attack against another poster who was dealing in facts, not the emotive language you have been using. It was not a nasty attack - but this one might be. I re-itterate. Two 13 year olds having sex legally, or even two teenagers having sex with each other, legally is much different to a 44 year old and a 13 year old having sex regardless of the age of consent. The older person is still sexually attracted to children. Is he not? Which makes him a paedophile regardless of the legal age of consent. Just because 13 might be the age of consent in some countries does not mean that a grown man who makes a habit of having sex with sexually immature girls is not a paedophile I think you need to look to a psycologist to give an opinion on how to define a paedophile, not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It was not a nasty attack - but this one might be. I re-itterate. Two 13 year olds having sex legally, or even two teenagers having sex with each other, legally is much different to a 44 year old and a 13 year old having sex regardless of the age of consent. The older person is still sexually attracted to children. Is he not? Which makes him a paedophile regardless of the legal age of consent. Just because 13 might be the age of consent in some countries does not mean that a grown man who makes a habit of having sex with sexually immature girls is not a paedophile I think you need to look to a psycologist to give an opinion, not a lawyer. Just because 13 might be the age of consent in some countries does not mean that a grown man who makes a habit of having sex with sexually immature girls is not a paedophile In those countries they would not be tried as a paedophile because they have LEGALLY done nothing wrong. Because in the eyes of the law with regards to sexual activity they are not children. I really can't see why this fact is not clear enough for you. So the judges, lawyers, psycologists, parents, and every other person is those countries are wrong and your right. And are you a doctor? Or an expert in sexual reproductive maturity? Did you examine the girl in question? No your making assumptions based on emotive thinking and not the facts. Its bleeding obvious that 13 years are sexually mature or have you not noticed the the number of 13 year mums in the news these days. You are also making assumptions that RP "makes a habit of having sex wtih sexually immature girls". I'm sure there are some lawyers would says thats a bit close to the mark. No why don't you go off and get back to your Jeremy Kyle show to brush up on your opinions ready for the next topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausage Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I would guess that when Hboy is having a face to face debate/argument with anyone he covers his ears and shouts 'la la la la la' loudly as soon as he is finished speaking ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I would guess that when Hboy is having a face to face debate/argument with anyone he covers his ears and shouts 'la la la la la' loudly as soon as he is finished speaking ! You mean like HPV vaccine conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And are you a doctor? Or an expert in sexual reproductive maturity? Did you examine the girl in question? No and neither are you. I'm just some dick who posts crap on here - just like you. Like your an expert on fucking anything either. Ha, ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.