So What Should Happen To This Punk?

[CuteOldGuy]

Never mind, FF. I have a feeling you are going to argue anything I say. Whatever. I've made my point.

[fetishfreak]

Not true. If you have a reasonable explanation for your point. I would not argue it. I would acknowledge it.

[CuteOldGuy]

Simply put, sexual activities with a person who cannot legally give consent is per se violent. If a person cannot consent to a certain activity, regardless of the reason, age, diminished capacity, whatever, it is a battery on their person. Non-consensual sexual activity is inherently violent. IMHO.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Non-consensual sexual activity is inherently violent. IMHO.

is that the problem with assup?

[essence]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simply put, sexual activities with a person who cannot legally give consent is per se violent. If a person cannot consent to a certain activity, regardless of the reason, age, diminished capacity, whatever, it is a battery on their person. Non-consensual sexual activity is inherently violent. IMHO.

+1

Every year we violently agree on something.

[CJOHN]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simply put, sexual activities with a person who cannot legally give consent is per se violent. If a person cannot consent to a certain activity, regardless of the reason, age, diminished capacity, whatever, it is a battery on their person. Non-consensual sexual activity is inherently violent. IMHO.

I thought that is call RAPE. please explain the different?
if I am not wrong, RAPE is STEAL against the law. LE please explain LAW or NOT?
would this apply to sugar baby and restricting someone a form of slavery?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simply put, sexual activities with a person who cannot legally give consent is per se violent. If a person cannot consent to a certain activity, regardless of the reason, age, diminished capacity, whatever, it is a battery on their person. Non-consensual sexual activity is inherently violent. IMHO.

COG that's rape- but let's say a 15 year old girl has the hots for a 20 year old guy and they both hook up- has the guy committed a violent sex act? The guy in this case IMHO is a child molester even if the girl had the hots for him- he was having sex even if it were consensual with an under age person.
If that same 20 year old girl invited the 15 year old over- got her drunk and had sex with her that's rape- or obviously if he forced himself on her that's a violent crime that we consider rape.
COG let's say God forbid some escort on this site was actually 16 and saw a hobbyist for a "session" if the hobbyist knew she was 16 and went ahead with the session would the hobbyist have committed a violent act or is he guilty of various other crimes such as prostitution sex with a minor.

COG I am not saying you are wrong because you could be correct so is sex with anyone underage whether they consent or not deemed violent by the law?

[Chica Chaser]

Lets move on from the general underage topic. I don't want to lock this one, and there will be no other warnings

#10 - Topics regarding children, and certain images depicting children are not material for an adult-themed board. You must be at least 18 years of age to register and participate here, and along those lines, our subject matter is to surround individuals of the proper age range. Any mention or reference to underage sex is strictly forbidden and may result in loss of your posting privileges.

[gnadfly]

From what I've read the punk GOT A YELLOW CARD by the referee. NOT A RED CARD BUT A YELLOW CARD! Then he suckered punched the ref, it appears, from behind. Now generally if you get too many yellow cards in a number of games, they can suspended you but that's just ridiculous.

They haven't revealed the juvi's name but the referee's body was sent to Mexico for burial...That was for Old-Time Racist.

[CJOHN]

Originally Posted by CJOHN

I thought that is call RAPE. please explain the different?
if I am not wrong, RAPE is STEAL against the law. LE please explain LAW or NOT?
would this apply to sugar baby and restricting someone a form of slavery?

Does he get email

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

From what I've read the punk GOT A YELLOW CARD by the referee. NOT A RED CARD BUT A YELLOW CARD! Then he suckered punched the ref, it appears, from behind. Now generally if you get too many yellow cards in a number of games, they can suspended you but that's just ridiculous.

They haven't revealed the juvi's name but the referee's body was sent to Mexico for burial...That was for Old-Time Racist.

Dear Stupid Asshole,

You made a derogatory comment about Hispanics as soccer players (to most Texans that really means Mexicans, but we can talk about that some other time). Now you make a comment about the ref's body being sent to Mexico for burrial. Other than showing your biases and your stupidity in the fewest words possible, what other pertinence does the Mexican burrial have in this discussion?

Why don't you explain to me how my calling you out about your negative hispanic-oriented comments make ME a racist? That's like a lynch mob calling the victim a racist for damaging their rope.

While you are at it, let me restate what I said before (that you conveniently didn't answer): "PS: For two bonus points, tell me what race I harbor ill will towards? Hell, tell me what my ethnic background is (hint: it's a mix). I DO admit I am very predjudiced against bigots, stupid people, and wackos--so you fall on at least the double dose list, and possibly the triple dose one."

So, if I recall right, on the Zimmerman threads you and your ilk accused me of being anti-hispanic. Now it seems since you objected to my calling you out on your hispanic bashing here, maybe you are implying I am too pro-hispanic?

You can't even keep your lies straight. I know, that would require that you are capable of (1) remembering what you said, (2) logical thought, and (3) at least a shread of honesty. But since you are 0 for 3 I don't REALLY expect anything better from you--and you never disappoint.

So who am I predjudiced towards and against? What am I? You on the other hand are clear: you are a stupid loudmouth, nothing more.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Dear Stupid Asshole,

You made a derogatory comment about Hispanics as soccer players (to most Texans that really means Mexicans, but we can talk about that some other time). Now you make a comment about the ref's body being sent to Mexico for burrial. Other than showing your biases and your stupidity in the fewest words possible, what other pertinence does the Mexican burrial have in this discussion?

Why don't you explain to me how my calling you out about your negative hispanic-oriented comments make ME a racist? That's like a lynch mob calling the victim a racist for damaging their rope.

While you are at it, let me restate what I said before (that you conveniently didn't answer): "PS: For two bonus points, tell me what race I harbor ill will towards? Hell, tell me what my ethnic background is (hint: it's a mix). I DO admit I am very predjudiced against bigots, stupid people, and wackos--so you fall on at least the double dose list, and possibly the triple dose one."

So, if I recall right, on the Zimmerman threads you and your ilk accused me of being anti-hispanic. Now it seems since you objected to my calling you out on your hispanic bashing here, maybe you are implying I am too pro-hispanic?

You can't even keep your lies straight. I know, that would require that you are capable of (1) remembering what you said, (2) logical thought, and (3) at least a shread of honesty. But since you are 0 for 3 I don't REALLY expect anything better from you--and you never disappoint.

So who am I predjudiced towards and against? What am I? You are a stupid loudmouth, nothing more.

Yes, you are a racist. I've never made derogatory statements about Hispanics, Mexicans, or any other Latin group. I've simply pointed out inconvenient facts. Facts that you jump on as "racist." Why didn't you jump on Chica Chaser when he mentioned "la familia?"

Yes, you are a self-loathing racist. Nope I'm not lying. You have over-reacted since I started my Democrats killing Democrats thread and simply can't handle the truth and have no rationale response.

You are laughable.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

A very idiotic remark in a case where a person is dead and a family is mourning and you make a cheap political comment- very classy man- very classy.

Should you be posting something stupid about space aliens and the pyramids?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Should you be posting something stupid about space aliens and the pyramids?

Well at east when I post things- it doesn't involve insensitive remarks about people who actually have died or people who have mourned the lost of a loved one.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yes, you are a racist. I've never made derogatory statements about Hispanics, Mexicans, or any other Latin group. I've simply pointed out inconvenient facts. Facts that you jump on as "racist." Why didn't you jump on Chica Chaser when he mentioned "la familia?"

Yes, you are a self-loathing racist. Nope I'm not lying. You have over-reacted since I started my Democrats killing Democrats thread and simply can't handle the truth and have no rationale response.

You are laughable.

you let more stupidity leap out of your mouth.

"Pointing out inconvenient facts" and implying connections that do not logically follow is indeed derogatory. You know it, I know it, and anyone who takes even a quick glance knows it.

Why didn't I jump on CC? Because I prefer to jump on bigots like you who repeatedly spew hate and anger, rather than attack someone who is usually a voice of a more sane nature.

I am self loathing? So what group am I part of that I self loath? I notice (with no surprise at all) that you continue to avoid answering it because you know you can't. At least not accurately. But in reality you don't care--you are happy to state things as true without any concern about truth, so why would I expect you to change now?

I can't handle the truth? I reply to many of your ignorant, bigoted comments, calling you out when you throw in negative comments about entire groups--when it has nothing to do with the original question (such as this one). You on the other hand totally ignore questions I pose to you, or comments that counter your filth. And you say I have no rational reply? For example, in reply to your "the backpage was at least half-filled with people banned from the soccer field for assault on other players, coaches and refs with and without weapons. The majority had a Hispanic surname." Your not very subtile way of saying, "Of course he was a hispanic, that's what they do." As I asked before, if that is NOT what you were implying, then why make the comment?

I posted:
"Again, hate to burst your myopic bubble but the key is "the older teens, 20s crowd", not "hispanic" or "south texas".
--it happens at mostly Black basketball games in Harlem (and mostly White ones in Indiana)
--it happens in mostly Hispanic baseball games in Miami
--I was involved for about 4 years with organized soccer in Florida and it sure as hell happened there--but it was the Burbs and the players were about 90 WASP. That didn't stop parents from confronting officials, coaches, other parents. One Good Ol' Redneck took a baseball bat to a coach's car windows AT A U8 GAME!! Another one (mom this time, just to prove any gender can be a sick wacko) told a coach she would castrate him if he didn't give her charming little girl more minutes as a striker.
--it happens in damn near every NFL stadium and parking lot where the "fans" are so drunk they have no clue what their own race is, much less the poor slob who thought he should be able to wear the opposing colors at a game."

But since it is an "inconvenient" set of comments that don't fit your distorted "truth", you ignore it. Quite typical of you.



Sorry, calling out a narrow minded hate monger like you is not what most sane people would call "over reacting".