- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Velma is now the #1 worst-rated animated TV series in IMDB history
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:17 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:17 pm to Scruffy
quote:
That is from the legislative site.
Under the previous law, no matter the situation, be it a 17-year-old with a 20-year-old, engaging in consensual sex of a certain type(for instance anal or oral sex), the person would be required to register as a sex offender. Though not for vaginal. Vaginal sex would be up to the discretion of a judge hearing the case as to whether they must register as a sex offender(The intercourse would still be illegal under CA law though).
This bill removes standardizes and removes that mandated discrepancy and allows a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they should be required to file as a sex offender in the registry, regardless of type of sex engaged in.
...Its no wonder this site had a 20,000 QANON thread.
1
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:20 pm to BugAC
quote:
This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
You all really cant read can you?
It removes the mandatory registration of certain sex acts(anal, oral) under very specific conditions, it doesn't immunize anyone from being ordered onto a registry. It doesn't change any of the current laws regarding sex with minors. Let alone legalizing pedophilia.
You all are truly some of the dumbest people imaginable...
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:21 pm to Bronc
quote:Again, that quote is LITERALLY taken from the California legislative website.
This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.
Are you implying that we are making up the part about the age being up to 10 years older?
That part is the fricked up part.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:23 pm to BugAC
quote:
It's amazing how woke shows negative review are never because the shows are hot dogshit. But it's because it's just all those racists spamming the review sites...
1. You're full of shite if you're pretending people aren't spamming reviews on this shite
2. My point is, why the frick does anyone care so much about some dumbass show that you have to seek out to find anyway? Ya'll have made multiple multi-page threads about this dumb shite that no one besides those whining about how much they hate it cares about. It sucks, you can move on. There's other things that suck.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:28 pm to Scruffy
No the point is that it’s still possible for them to be required to register under the judges discretion. Plus it also is still possible for them to be charged with a crime. This law doesn’t make anything legal.
I dont Think there is any circumstance we’re a 24 year old fricking a 14 year old shouldn’t land them in a registry.
But obviously there are circumstances where an 18 year old shouldn’t have to register when he gets a BJ from his 17 year old gf.
And you can say “well why don’t they lower the age gap.” Well why don’t they? This bill just brings in line all sexual acts with the law for vaginal sex.
It’s not like republicans are trying to lower the age gap and this guy is fighting for it.
I dont Think there is any circumstance we’re a 24 year old fricking a 14 year old shouldn’t land them in a registry.
But obviously there are circumstances where an 18 year old shouldn’t have to register when he gets a BJ from his 17 year old gf.
And you can say “well why don’t they lower the age gap.” Well why don’t they? This bill just brings in line all sexual acts with the law for vaginal sex.
It’s not like republicans are trying to lower the age gap and this guy is fighting for it.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:33 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Neither do I, but I wouldn’t have written the law in a way that gives leeway to that situation because I’m not insane.
I dont Think there is any circumstance we’re a 24 year old fricking a 14 year old shouldn’t land them in a registry.
Someone thought that that age gap was appropriate.
quote:Yea, they aren’t a decade apart.
But obviously there are circumstances where an 18 year old shouldn’t have to register when he gets a BJ from his 17 year old gf.
quote:I already stated that this was already a fricked up law. This just makes it where every orientation can be involved.
And you can say “well why don’t they lower the age gap.” Well why don’t they? This bill just brings in line all sexual acts with the law for vaginal sex.
quote:It is California.
It’s not like republicans are trying to lower the age gap and this guy is fighting for it.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:36 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Again, that quote is LITERALLY taken from the California legislative website.
Read this very closely
quote:
bill would exempt from mandatory registration
quote:
of certain offenses
It is not legalizing pedophilia, it is not immunizing people from registration. It isn't changing any of the current laws governing statutory or actual rape.
A judge has full discretion to still require someone to register as a sex offender, it simply treats consensual anal and oral sex under the law the same as vaginal penetration.
You can not, under any circumstance in California, have sex with someone under the age of 18 if you are over 18. That does not change. The judge does have discretion, if it is statutory, to not put the older party on the registry as a sex offender. And that used to only apply if the sex was vaginal, this expands that to all statutory sex.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:37 pm to Bronc
quote:
laws regarding sex with minors. Let alone legalizing pedophilia.
Maybe you should read.
quote:
bill would exempt from mandatory registration
What is that registration? Oh yeah, sex offender registration.
quote:
under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor
What exactly is a minor?
You leftists sure do love your pedophilia.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:40 pm to BugAC
quote:
What is that registration? Oh yeah, sex offender registration.
Again, you stupid, stupid moron
quote:
mandatory
Define this word for me?
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:40 pm to Bronc
quote:Again, why even include that discretion?
A judge has full discretion to still require someone to register as a sex offender
quote:If a judge uses his discretion, that does change.
You can not, under any circumstance in California, have sex with someone under the age of 18 if you are over 18. That does not change.
Look, 10 years is a fricking weird arse age range.
Why 10 years?
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:41 pm to Bronc
quote:Why shouldn’t it be mandatory for someone 9 years and 11 months?
Define this word for me?
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:42 pm to saintsfan22
These cultists will
1. never admit they're wrong.
2. never apologize.
3. always defend the indefensible.
1. never admit they're wrong.
2. never apologize.
3. always defend the indefensible.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:44 pm to Scruffy
What do ya know, another M/TV Board post that has turned into a Politard thread.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:45 pm to iwyLSUiwy
In my defense, I came in after they brought up some weird arse “10 year age difference” sex offender law in CA.
And it isn’t like this thread was ever going to be good.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:55 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And it isn’t like this thread was ever going to be good.
For sure. Once you get southeastern, sammy, and bronc in a thread together it's over.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 3:56 pm to iwyLSUiwy
I don’t even know anything about Velma.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 4:00 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Which I find insane.
I struggle to find a situation where it would be warranted to not require offender registration in a statutory rape charge against a 24-year-old sleeping with a 14-year-old, so I agree there.
But the law is simply amending the discrepancy under the law, not attempting to rewrite the entire California sexual crimes code.
If there is a choice between no discrepancy for oral/anal sex and discrepancy similar to how vaginal penetration is governed under current existing laws, the latter is infinitely better, even if the overall sex laws are still wonky at both ends.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 1/23/23 at 4:01 pm to Scruffy
The conversation started with “liberals in California are trying to legalize pedophilia”
1. Liberals didn’t push for the original law
2. The law doesn’t make pedophilia legal it only has to do with registration. Other criminal statues enforce pedophilia as a crime.
3. There was 0 outrage about the original statues before someone pointed out they effect gays more than straights.
1. Liberals didn’t push for the original law
2. The law doesn’t make pedophilia legal it only has to do with registration. Other criminal statues enforce pedophilia as a crime.
3. There was 0 outrage about the original statues before someone pointed out they effect gays more than straights.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 5:54 pm to Bronc
quote:
wonky at both ends.
AKA two counts of sodomy
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:54 pm to Bronc
quote:
Thats not in the bill
There is a reason the fake news blog is leaving out any citations or quotes from the actual bill
Of course you come flying in here to defend this shite.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News