Martin Nolan give 1 year to guilty pedo.

Strazdas · 03-11-2019 2:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would depend on the circumstances in each particular case, what they could or couldn’t be charged with.

An EU wide age of consent simply isn’t necessary. The reason the age of consent varies among different jurisdictions is simply as a result of different social morals which influence their legal system. I can think of no better example than the recent case in Spain where a group of men who were charged with raping a 14 year old were acquitted because the charge of rape didn’t apply where the victim didn’t fight back (she was unconscious!) -

Spain: Court acquits men of gang-raping unconscious fourteen-year-old

For all the talk of more liberal laws in other European countries in relation to sexual offences, the people advocating for it are simply cherry picking the circumstances which suit their arguments, and ignoring the context of the society in which those laws exist. Ireland isn’t continental Europe, which has a whole host of it’s own problems in law without encouraging the idea of us adopting the same laws which have led to the current mess in which countries in Continental Europe find themselves.

I would say their laws are normal and practical and ours are very conservative. We're the ones out of kilter with our 30+ nearest neighbours.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 3:03pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

The age of criminal responsibility for some sexual offences is in fact 10 years of age, so they may actually be prosecuted for such, though unless there's aggravating circumstances the possibility would be pretty remote.

What part of “it depends upon the circumstances in each particular case” are you having difficulty with exactly? There is nothing in Irish law which criminalises a person under the age of 17 engaging in sexual activity. It depends upon the circumstances in each particular case as to whether an offence has been committed or not, but that is determined on a case by case basis, in which the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence applies, which is why the offence of statututory rape was ruled to be unconstitutional, as it presumed guilt and had the effect of criminalising children under the age of 17 who engaged in sexual activity. That’s why it was removed in 2006 and no longer exists in Irish law.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 3:05pm

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Sorry, but you're simply wrong about this.

Sex with anyone under 15, under any circumstances, is an offence.

The proximity-in-age defence applies only to children aged between 15 and 17. It doesn't cover the case of a 16-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old. Or two 10-year-olds, for that matter.

It’s not though. It was before 2006, now it isn’t.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 03-11-2019 3:08pm

Strazdas wrote: »

I would say their laws are normal and practical and ours are very conservative. We're the ones out of kilter with our 30+ nearest neighbours.

Seven EU member states — Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Portugal — have an age of consent of 14.

Sorry, but I don't think it's "normal and practical" for a child to be fair game sexually as soon as he or she turns 14.

Irish law does a reasonable job of balancing sexual relationships between close-in-age teenagers, teenagers and older adults, and teenagers and adults in positions of authority.

It's not perfect, but in my view it's preferable to an "anything goes" approach around second-years in secondary school.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 3:09pm

Strazdas wrote: »

I would say their laws are normal and practical and ours are very conservative. We're the ones out of kilter with our 30+ nearest neighbours.

Our nearest neighbour is the UK, which has similar laws to ours. Geographical proximity isn’t how our laws are determined in any case.

Cyclingtourist · 03-11-2019 3:10pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part of “it depends upon the circumstances in each particular case” are you having difficulty with exactly? There is nothing in Irish law which criminalises a person under the age of 17 engaging in sexual activity. It depends upon the circumstances in each particular case as to whether an offence has been committed or not, but that is determined on a case by case basis, in which the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence applies, which is why the offence of statututory rape was ruled to be unconstitutional, as it presumed guilt and had the effect of criminalising children under the age of 17 who engaged in sexual activity. That’s why it was removed in 2006 and no longer exists in Irish law.

The way I read it and I'm no legal expert, the changes introduced the possibility of a 'legitimate defence' by the defendant but that doesn't mean that they won't face prosecution and the possibility of conviction.

Strazdas · 03-11-2019 3:14pm

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Seven EU member states — Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Portugal — have an age of consent of 14.

Sorry, but I don't think it's "normal and practical" for a child to be fair game sexually as soon as he or she turns 14.

Irish law does a reasonable job of balancing sexual relationships between close-in-age teenagers, teenagers and older adults, and teenagers and adults in positions of authority.

It's not perfect, but in my view it's preferable to an "anything goes" approach around second-years in secondary school.

Ireland moving from 17 to 14 is clearly a total non runner and will never happen, but you would think 16 would be a practical move.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 03-11-2019 3:18pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Ireland moving from 17 to 14 is clearly a total non runner and will never happen, but you would think 16 would be a practical move.

I wouldn't have a huge issue with lowering the general age from 17 to 16, but would keep at at 18 for people in positions of authority.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 3:25pm

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

The way I read it and I'm no legal expert, the changes introduced the possibility of a 'legitimate defence' by the defendant but that doesn't mean that they won't face prosecution and the possibility of conviction.

That’s pretty much it tbh. Anyone can possibly face prosecution, and they could possibly be convicted of the charges against them if they are found guilty in a Court of Law, but it would depend upon the circumstances in each case as to whether or not it could be determined by investigating officers whether they have actually committed an offence in the first place.

To put it in more practical terms - mammy can’t just rock up to a cop shop and tell them she wants little Jane charged with rape for in her opinion taking advantage of her little Johnny, and expect that the cops are going to say “yeah no bother, we’ll get on that”, and little Jane automatically ends up in the clink.

That’s just not going to happen, which is why all the foreboding nonsense about the age of consent and all the rest of it regarding teenagers is really just fearmongering based upon what I could only describe an unfortunate understanding of our judicial system. I’d be more concerned that my child would understand concepts like having respect for himself and respect for other people before I’d have any interest in his sex life. Basically I’m more concerned with getting the fundamental basics of interpersonal relationships right before I’d be thinking about him managing to fcuk things up for himself so spectacularly that he ends up in trouble with the law.

Cyclingtourist · 03-11-2019 4:10pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To put it in more practical terms - mammy can’t just rock up to a cop shop and tell them she wants little Jane charged with rape for in her opinion taking advantage of her little Johnny, and expect that the cops are going to say “yeah no bother, we’ll get on that”, and little Jane automatically ends up in the clink.

Little Jane or little John may not automatically 'end up in the clink' but that doesn't mean that they won't have to go through the trauma of an investigation and the possibility of prosecution, all of which could stretch over months if not years.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 4:18pm

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Little Jane or little John may not automatically 'end up in the clink' but that doesn't mean that they won't have to go through the trauma of an investigation and the possibility of prosecution, all of which could stretch over months if not years.

You’re ignoring the far more likely possibility that Johnny’s mammy could simply be told by Gardaí that they’ll “keep her complaint on file” :pac:

carolmon · 03-11-2019 10:20pm

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

There is an absolute minimum age, and it's 15. For instance, nobody can have sex with a 10-year-old without committing an offence.

Above the age of 15, circumstances can vary depending on the age and sex of the respective parties and whether one of them is in a position of authority vis-à-vis the other, but Irish law draws a hard line at sex with anyone under 15.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The law is very clear. It is illegal for two 16 year olds to have sex. That is absolutely clear. The age of consent is 17. There is a mitigating circumstance of age which may factor into any possible prosecution. The age of consent is 17. The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t any minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law, that’s what RandomName was arguing exists. It doesn’t. 10 year olds engaging in sexual activity aren’t committing an offence.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The age of criminal responsibility for some sexual offences is in fact 10 years of age, so they may actually be prosecuted for such, though unless there's aggravating circumstances the possibility would be pretty remote.

Clear as mud.... and we expect teenagers to understand?

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 10:33pm

carolmon wrote: »

Clear as mud.... and we expect teenagers to understand?

Teenagers generally do understand already for the most part because they’re exposed to far more than just silly consent classes in schools. The irony given the particular circumstances in this case is lost on nobody I’d say!

Basically the teacher saying she believed the age of consent was 16 has nothing to do with anything, it’s a silly thing even to bring up. Her defence obviously couldn’t argue that she had a reasonable belief that the child was 17 which is a defence often used in these types of cases. Given she was his teacher, she knew exactly what age the child was.

carolmon · 03-11-2019 10:45pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Teenagers generally do understand already for the most part because they’re exposed to far more than just silly consent classes in schools. The irony given the particular circumstances in this case is lost on nobody I’d say!

Basically the teacher saying she believed the age of consent was 16 has nothing to do with anything, it’s a silly thing even to bring up. Her defence obviously couldn’t argue that she had a reasonable belief that the child was 17 which is a defence often used in these types of cases. Given she was his teacher, she knew exactly what age the child was.

I totally agree... I'm not defending the teacher... I referred to teenagers I believe she was 23?

My point was you only have to look at the arguments here to acknowledge the legal complexities of consent law and that it can be difficult for teenagers to grasp

pinkyeye · 03-11-2019 10:46pm

nullzero wrote: »

I find it incredible how many people crawl out of the woodwork on topics like these.
A few years ago when Adam Johnson was being sent to prison for engaging in sexual activity with a teenage girl there was all sorts of people defending him.

Maybe there's more people in society that have paedophilic tenancies than we care to recognise.

You don't know what paedophilia means.

One eyed Jack · 03-11-2019 10:56pm

carolmon wrote: »

I totally agree... I'm not defending the teacher... I referred to teenagers I believe she was 23?

Ahh no I know you weren’t defending the teacher at all, but there’s a small political lobby group are trying to introduce consent classes in schools, and one of the sponsors of the bill, Ruth Coppinger, a former teacher herself, there hasn’t been a peep out of her regarding this case. Only a couple of weeks ago she was waving her knickers about in the Dail in protest at the lenient sentencing in sexual assault and rape cases.

Teenagers generally do have far more sense than they are often given credit for. They’re quite capable of differentiating right from wrong without having to be aware of the minutiae of the legal system which endeavours to protect them from sexual predators.

Batty Boy · 03-11-2019 11:18pm

There was a case a few years ago of a middle-aged man being charged with child sex abuse because he took off his underpants in front of a 15yo lad in the men's changing room at the gym, like this case Mammy went to the Gardai. The poor man had to go all the way to the supreme court to clear his name. Ireland is still ridiculously backwards when it comes to sex, nudity and teenagers.

nullzero · 03-11-2019 11:33pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

You don't know what paedophilia means.

In the context of a legal system which deems sexual contact with persons below the legal age of consent to be wrong we can ascribe all such behaviour as being under the umbrella of paedophilia even if from the age of 13 to the age of 17 (in this country at least) this paraphilia could be described as Ephebophilia.

But I'm going to assume you understand that, and we're just being smarmy and pretending not to understand what I meant.

In the news recently we heard all about Jeffrey Epstein and his "paedophile Island", we all understand that most of the girls he trafficked were pubescent girls and therefore his island "should" have been called "Ephebophile Island" but we're all competent enough to understand what was meant by what was reported.

Again this notion of "it's not paedophilia its ephebophilia" was bandied about when the Adam Johnson case was in the news and to be honest it isn't any type of justification for the abuse of underage persons, it only ever comes across as being indicative of something that is said online by people who may be open to engaging in unlawful sexual contact with minors themselves. So while you think you've shown me up by posting that I don't understand what paedophilia means, you saying that is a type of dog whistle(and I really dislike that term but I'm struggling to find a better description) for "I'm actually OK with adults having sex with minors".

osarusan · 04-11-2019 1:13pm

nullzero wrote: »

it only ever comes across as being indicative of something that is said online by people who may be open to engaging in unlawful sexual contact with minors themselves.

So when a poster points out, completely correctly, that what happened in this case, while illegal, was not paedophilia, what you take from that is that it really means they're keen on sleeping with minors themselves?

That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on boards, and I've seen a lot of idiotic things on boards.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 1:56pm

osarusan wrote: »

So when a poster points out, completely correctly, that what happened in this case, while illegal, was not paedophilia, what you take from that is that it really means they're keen on sleeping with minors themselves?

That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on boards, and I've seen a lot of idiotic things on boards.

So when you have people splitting hairs over the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia whilst arguing for the age of consent to be lowered whilst also arguing that sentences handed down for these offences are "too harsh" what other conclusion should be drawn?

Let's argue over the correct name for the illegal paraphilia in question, that's the real issue at play here. And you call me idiotic. What a truly pathetic attempt at discussion, come in ignore the majority of what I wrote and infer that I'm an idiot. Bravo.

osarusan · 04-11-2019 2:12pm

nullzero wrote: »

So when you have people splitting hairs over the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia whilst arguing for the age of consent to be lowered whilst also arguing that sentences handed down for these offences are "too harsh" what other conclusion should be drawn?

If somebody highlights that it's not paedophilia, and also thinks the age of consent should be lowered, and thinks the sentence in this case was harsh...the only conclusion you can draw from this is that they actually want to have sex with minors themselves?

That is literally the only motivation you can imagine for somebody making those arguments?

nullzero · 04-11-2019 2:34pm

osarusan wrote: »

If somebody highlights that it's not paedophilia, and also thinks the age of consent should be lowered, and thinks the sentence in this case was harsh...the only conclusion you can draw from this is that they actually want to have sex with minors themselves?

That is literally the only motivation you can imagine for somebody making those arguments?

I never stated that the only motivation they would have would be wanting to engage in sex with minors, however making those arguments consistently would indicate that they at least believe engaging in sex with minors is not something they see as being wrong.

One poster quoted me by saying "you don't know what paedophilia is", something they dropped into the thread previously to say to another user. That was their sole contribution to the discussion, do they exist on boards to tell people when they aren't using words correctly? They didn't even offer a correction, just a criticism of the use of a word that describes a closely related paraphilia.

Do you feel strongly that ephebophilia be used in place of the word paedophilia?
Do you wish the age of consent was lower?
Do you feel people who engage in sex with minors are being harshly sentenced?
What are your motivations?

osarusan · 04-11-2019 2:49pm

nullzero wrote: »

Do you feel strongly that ephebophilia be used in place of the word paedophilia?
Do you wish the age of consent was lower?
Do you feel people who engage in sex with minors are being harshly sentenced?
What are your motivations?

I feel strongly that the word paedophilia not be used, because it's not the correct word to use.

I don't wish anything. If the government of the day decided to reduce it to 16 (with exceptions for authority figures, and maybe with a Romeo and Juliet style bracket) I wouldn't have an issue with that. I'd like them to base their decisions, whatever they are on expert opinions.

It depends on each case. In this case, I have no issue with her going to prison, as I already said in the thread.

My main motivation is to get people to recognise that this isn't an instance of paedophilia.

My new motivation is to highlight the utterly pathetic 'what this really means is that you want to have sex with minors' argument you are making.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 3:01pm

osarusan wrote: »

I feel strongly that the word paedophilia not be used, because it's not the correct word to use.

I don't wish anything. If the government of the day decided to reduce it to 16 (with exceptions for authority figures, and maybe with a Romeo and Juliet style bracket) I wouldn't have an issue with that. I'd like them to base their decisions, whatever they are on expert opinions.

It depends on each case. In this case, I have no issue with her going to prison, as I already said in the thread.

My main motivation is to get people to recognise that this isn't an instance of paedophilia.

My new motivation is to highlight the utterly pathetic 'what this really means is that you want to have sex with minors' argument you are making.

You feel strongly that paedophilia not be used in place of ephebophilia because its not the correct word to use? Are there any others words that people use incorrectly that you feel strongly about?

Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile preyed mostly on pubescent girls but they're known as paedophiles, does that get your back up?

I'm looking forward to the civil rights for
Ephebophiles marches you're sure to be organising, "we're just sick of Ephebophiles being mis labelled as paedophiles, everyone knows it's a distinct paraphilia, it doesn't matter that they're broadly similar or that they're both illegal or that most people see them as being broadly as bad as each other, we need this pathetic misuse of incorrect naming to stop once and for all".

Justin Credible Darts · 04-11-2019 5:18pm

call them what ever, they are a danger to kids and deserve to be locked up

meeeeh · 04-11-2019 5:53pm

nullzero wrote: »

You feel strongly that paedophilia not be used in place of ephebophilia because its not the correct word to use? Are there any others words that people use incorrectly that you feel strongly about?

So if I called you a paedophile you'd be ok with that? Let's not split hair about the age of people you are having sex with since it's a minor unimportant fact (according to you). It's only words. Right?

vriesmays · 04-11-2019 5:54pm

She's in the paper today, some pic from her Facebook page where she holds up a newspaper on a similar case in the UK.

04-11-2019 5:55pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So if I called you a paedophile you'd be ok with that? Let's not split hair about the age of people you are having sex with since it's a minor unimportant fact (according to you).

Ah now, that's incredibly disingenuous.

Paedophile has wrongly become a catch-all for people who have sex with people who are underage. Yes, it is technically not the correct word but we all know what the poster is saying.

04-11-2019 5:56pm

vriesmays wrote: »

She's in the paper today, some pic from her Facebook page where she holds up a newspaper on a similar case in the UK.

Yeah, she doesn't seem to be the poor naïve girl that people were making her out to be.

meeeeh · 04-11-2019 5:59pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah now, that's incredibly disingenuous.

Paedophile has wrongly become a catch-all for people who have sex with people who are underage. Yes, it is technically not the correct word but we all know what the poster is saying.

Do we? It's a very strong word to use so use it properly.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 6:13pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So if I called you a paedophile you'd be ok with that? Let's not split hair about the age of people you are having sex with since it's a minor unimportant fact (according to you). It's only words. Right?

I wouldn't be happy about it because it wouldn't be true,as I have never engaged in such activities.

In all honesty your post makes no sense whatsoever, but then that seems to be par for the course with you from what I've experienced of you in the past.

If you want to have a go at me fire ahead but at least be a bit more creative in how you go about it.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 6:19pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Do we? It's a very strong word to use so use it properly.

Ephebophile isn't much better, the two are closely related to each other inasmuch as they are describing somebody who preys on underage people to have sex with them.

Are you another poster more distraught about the use of the incorrect descriptor than the offence itself?

meeeeh · 04-11-2019 6:24pm

nullzero wrote: »

I wouldn't be happy about it because it wouldn't be true,as I have never engaged in such activities.

In all honesty your post makes no sense whatsoever, but then that seems to be par for the course with you from what I've experienced of you in the past.

If you want to have a go at me fire ahead but at least be a bit more creative in how you go about it.

You are not even smart enough to understand I wasn't having a go at you (now I am), I was making a point how words matter. But apparently the words matter only when it's about you not when it's about others.

Don't worry I don't think you are a paedophile I just think you are a hypocrite.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 6:31pm

meeeeh wrote: »

You are not even smart enough to understand I wasn't having a go at you (now I am), I was making a point how words matter. But apparently the words matter only when it's about you not when it's about others.

Don't worry I don't think you are a paedophile I just think you are a hypocrite.

How am I a hypocrite?

You've some neck making assumptions about other people's intelligence with your track record on this site.

You do realise that your post quoted a post of mine and was directed in its entirety at me right? I mean you wrote it, or am I not smart enough to understand that your were quoting me but actually talking to somebody else in some Basil Fawlty-esque attempt to untangle yourself from responsibility for something you know you did but would perhaps prefer you hadn't done?

Yet more nonsense from you, what a surprise.

tommyled1984 · 04-11-2019 8:03pm

nullzero wrote: »

I didn't hurl abuse at you for starters.
Secondly just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that the opinion you have is valid.
The morality of sex with minors is cut and dry and any attempt to justify it is wrong.
You say the law needs to be changed? Do you propose that sex with minors be acceptable in certain circumstances, such as a sexy twenty something teacher getting it on with a young fella who's barely old enough to shave?
You can be guaranteed that the boy in question will suffer as a result of this situation, regardless of what you say or believe what happened was wrong as is you and others excusing it.

This was a good thread which generated plenty of interest and at the start was inviting to people to share their opinions. Unfortunately your persistant input has completely killed it.
I see you have had a very productive day today. IF you work I hope it's in the public sector so the whole country can share the burden as opposed to a small private company trying to make it.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 8:23pm

tommyled1984 wrote: »

This was a good thread which generated plenty of interest and at the start was inviting to people to share their opinions. Unfortunately your persistant input has completely killed it.
I see you have had a very productive day today. IF you work I hope it's in the public sector so the whole country can share the burden as opposed to a small private company trying to make it.

Sorry but that is a pile of crap.
I contributed to this thread plenty, if my opinion doesn't chime with yours that's too bad. That is what goes on in a forum, you'd be aware of that if you'd posted more than 12 times in ten years.

I see you're another "Emmanual Macron married his teacher after she had sex with him at 15 so this poor teacher shouldn't be locked up" types.

You feel this teacher did nothing wrong, which is factually incorrect. Your understanding of the case is also incorrect and your opinion about consent between adults and minors is wrong.
And because I and others have shown the opinion you and others hold to be without merit I am personally responsible for killing this thread?
Get a grip.

RandomName2 · 04-11-2019 10:57pm

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry but that is a pile of crap.
I contributed to this thread plenty,

Mainly by calling other posters here predators. That usually encourages deep and meaningful conversation on complicated and controversial topics, yeah.

nullzero wrote: »

You feel this teacher did nothing wrong, which is factually incorrect.

From a legal standing you are incorrect. From Emanuel Macron's point of view you are also incorrect. I assume you mean from an ethical point of view? I think you would have actually a point there, that is if you didn't articulate it by any other means than say that everyone who doesn't agree with you is something something. Vacuous virtue signalling.

Feel free to ignore criticism of your posting as just 'waffle'. Bask in the glow of the victories that come from smashing straw men to bits.

nullzero · 04-11-2019 11:04pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Mainly by calling other posters here predators. That usually encourages deep and meaningful conversation on complicated and controversial topics, yeah.

From a legal standing you are incorrect. From Emanuel Macron's point of view you are also incorrect. I assume you mean from an ethical point of view? I think you would have actually a point there, that is if you didn't articulate it by any other means than say that everyone who doesn't agree with you is something something. Vacuous virtue signalling.

Feel free to ignore criticism of your posting as just 'waffle'. Bask in the glow of the victories that come from smashing straw men to bits.

I never called anybody a predator. For somebody banging on about facts you're a little short of them yourself.

The Macron situation is an oddball situation and using it as a jumping off point for discussion on this type of topic is laughable.

tommyled1984 · 04-11-2019 11:26pm

nullzero wrote: »

Sorry but that is a pile of crap.
I contributed to this thread plenty, if my opinion doesn't chime with yours that's too bad. That is what goes on in a forum, you'd be aware of that if you'd posted more than 12 times in ten years.

I see you're another "Emmanual Macron married his teacher after she had sex with him at 15 so this poor teacher shouldn't be locked up" types.

You feel this teacher did nothing wrong, which is factually incorrect. Your understanding of the case is also incorrect and your opinion about consent between adults and minors is wrong.
And because I and others have shown the opinion you and others hold to be without merit I am personally responsible for killing this thread?
Get a grip.

I'm just saying it puts people off contributing when they read the childish(must have the last word) dialogue.

"So if my opinion doesn't chime with yours, too bad" yet you try ridicule anyone who has an opinion different to you.

I used the example of macron for those who were unaware of an instance where a teacher and student had sex in their area. I didn't say what happened macron was ok.

I never said that the Irish substitute teacher did nothing wrong. I said I don't think she should be a registered sex offender. You've misquoted me twice there.

My opinion about consent can't be wrong because it is my opinion. I think the laws around consent need change.

And yes I have posted very little, I'm kept busy at other things. I see you have posted a lot more than me and also that you have been booted out of many threads by the moderator. No surprise there.. I await your inevitable reply.. ðŸ˜´

RandomName2 · 05-11-2019 12:25am

nullzero wrote: »

I never called anybody a predator. For somebody banging on about facts you're a little short of them yourself.

Oh lordy you got me there nullzero. That retort, man, how can I ever show that you attack posters by calling them paedophiles, predators, or people who are so way inclined. How do I show that you throw a temper tantrum at every opportunity and call your opponent names because you can't argue a point? How do I show that you've just lied? Gee.. this is going to be a difficult one. I mean, you're right, it's just a little short.

nullzero wrote: »

So when you have people splitting hairs over the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia whilst arguing for the age of consent to be lowered whilst also arguing that sentences handed down for these offences are "too harsh" what other conclusion [other than the posters being paedophiles] should be drawn?

nullzero wrote: »

You say I sound ridiculous, you really need to take a look at what you're saying from an objective standpoint, you're not coming across particularly well. In fact you come across as somebody with quite deep seated issues

Here's the thing Random I hope that what I'm saying does upset you and everyone who agrees with you because your beliefs are worrying. I feel the line in the sand is clear for all to see and those who choose to cross it deserve no quarter.

nullzero wrote: »

In all honesty your post makes no sense whatsoever, but then that seems to be par for the course with you from what I've experienced of you in the past.

nullzero wrote: »

This is just unbelievable.
You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this woman (she isn't a "girl").

The mental gymnastics you're engaged in are incredible. Shame on you and all those thanking your post.

nullzero wrote: »

But I'm going to assume you understand that, and we're just being smarmy and pretending not to understand what I meant.

So while you think you've shown me up by posting that I don't understand what paedophilia means, you saying that is a type of dog whistle(and I really dislike that term but I'm struggling to find a better description) for "I'm actually OK with adults having sex with minors".

nullzero wrote: »

I find it incredible how many people crawl out of the woodwork on topics like these.
A few years ago when Adam Johnson was being sent to prison for engaging in sexual activity with a teenage girl there was all sorts of people defending him.

Maybe there's more people in society that have paedophilic tenancies than we care to recognise.

God I really am a stupid one. I hadn't realized until this moment you're just a troll. Usually trolls don't have as much pathos in their register. [slow clap]

nullzero · 05-11-2019 12:59am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh lordy you got me there nullzero. That retort, man, how can I ever show that you attack posters by calling them paedophiles, predators, or people who are so way inclined. How do I show that you throw a temper tantrum at every opportunity and call your opponent names because you can't argue a point? How do I show that you've just lied? Gee.. this is going to be a difficult one. I mean, you're right, it's just a little short.

God I really am a stupid one. I hadn't realized until this moment you're just a troll. Usually trolls don't have as much pathos in their register. [slow clap]

Where exactly are these temper tantrums? Do you really think I'm flailing around like a spoilt child whilst posting here?

I never accused anyone here of being a predator or a paedophile, I stated that the people here who are suggesting that the woman in question in this thread did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been sent to prison whilst at the same time suggesting that such actions should not be seen as criminal offences are saying things that make them appear to support sexual activities with minors which raises questions about them personally.

You eventually cleared up that you believed that this case was judged correctly, so therefor I exclude you from that categorisation.
On the other hand I resent your persistent personal vendetta against me, I accepted your explanation yesterday and made no further reply to you. You have taken upon yourself to post these replies to me this evening and in doing so you're accusing me of being a troll, if you think that's what I am report the posts in question because I'm getting pretty sick of your selective reading and your personal vendetta against me.

nullzero · 05-11-2019 1:12am

tommyled1984 wrote: »

I'm just saying it puts people off contributing when they read the childish(must have the last word) dialogue.

"So if my opinion doesn't chime with yours, too bad" yet you try ridicule anyone who has an opinion different to you.

I used the example of macron for those who were unaware of an instance where a teacher and student had sex in their area. I didn't say what happened macron was ok.

I never said that the Irish substitute teacher did nothing wrong. I said I don't think she should be a registered sex offender. You've misquoted me twice there.

My opinion about consent can't be wrong because it is my opinion. I think the laws around consent need change.

And yes I have posted very little, I'm kept busy at other things. I see you have posted a lot more than me and also that you have been booted out of many threads by the moderator. No surprise there.. I await your inevitable reply.. ðŸ˜´

Tommy you replied to me accusing me of killing the thread. You took it upon yourself to do that, do you think I should come on and apologise to you?

Your initial post on this thread used language that excused the behaviour of the teacher in question, and the situation you described bore no resemblance to the reality of the situation where this woman knew the boy from school and made the effort to actively groom him.

I'm also not attempting to have the last word, I'm merely defending my argument. The thread can go on for any length of time, it isn't up to me to kill it off.

Also I haven't tried to ridicule anybody here at any point. I have made bold statements undoubtedly, but that is due to the seriousness of the subject. There are people here who I would have serious reservations about based upon what they have posted, they have had a go at me and I've had a go back.

As for your opinion not being able to be wrong, I'm afraid you're mistaken there as well. If I came on here and made a racist slur and said it can't be wrong because its my opinion you'd laugh me out of the place and rightly so. You are entitled to an opinion, you are not entitled to believe it to be correct you because you hold it and you can expect it to be challenged if it is wrong.

I think you should look again at the particulars of this case and maybe come back and post your opinion on it after you have.

tommyled1984 · 05-11-2019 3:34am

nullzero wrote: »

Tommy you replied to me accusing me of killing the thread. You took it upon yourself to do that, do you think I should come on and apologise to you?

Your initial post on this thread used language that excused the behaviour of the teacher in question, and the situation you described bore no resemblance to the reality of the situation where this woman knew the boy from school and made the effort to actively groom him.

I'm also not attempting to have the last word, I'm merely defending my argument. The thread can go on for any length of time, it isn't up to me to kill it off.

Also I haven't tried to ridicule anybody here at any point. I have made bold statements undoubtedly, but that is due to the seriousness of the subject. There are people here who I would have serious reservations about based upon what they have posted, they have had a go at me and I've had a go back.

As for your opinion not being able to be wrong, I'm afraid you're mistaken there as well. If I came on here and made a racist slur and said it can't be wrong because its my opinion you'd laugh me out of the place and rightly so. You are entitled to an opinion, you are not entitled to believe it to be correct you because you hold it and you can expect it to be challenged if it is wrong.

I think you should look again at the particulars of this case and maybe come back and post your opinion on it after you have.

YES you killed this thread, hence the lack of posts. NO AGAIN I did not excuse the behaviour of the teacher in my initial post. YES you did try to ridicule me. "They had a go at me and i had a go back" im too lazy to check but im confident that you had a go at a lot more people than people have had a go at you. An absolute dose....

nullzero · 05-11-2019 8:11am

tommyled1984 wrote: »

YES you killed this thread, hence the lack of posts. NO AGAIN I did not excuse the behaviour of the teacher in my initial post. YES you did try to ridicule me. "They had a go at me and i had a go back" im too lazy to check but im confident that you had a go at a lot more people than people have had a go at you. An absolute dose....

Tommy I didn't ridicule you, I didn't "kill the thread" and I think you need to re read your initial post in the thread and examine it in finer detail.
If you're too lazy to check that's on you. People have a go at each others arguments here all the time, if you don't like that, again it's too bad.

I'm an" absolute dose"? Take a look in the mirror.

Martin Nolan give 1 year to guilty pedo.

Comments