Subject: Re: Sexual Assault Frenzy Becoming Comical
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 4:32:34 PM UTC-5, Rhino wrote:
> On 2017-11-10 4:10 PM, W/Q wrote:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 3:27:31 PM UTC-5, Rhino wrote:
> >> On 2017-11-10 3:02 PM, W/Q wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 1:57:58 PM UTC-5, Rhino wrote:
> >>>> On 2017-11-09 7:42 PM, W/Q wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:29:46 PM UTC-5, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2017-11-09 5:02 PM, W/Q wrote:
> >>>>>>> It's turning into an avalanche. Now controversial Republican Alabama politician Roy Moore
and Charlie Sheen are accused of having sex with kids, the latter with Corey Haim when he was 13. If
this keeps up, there'll come a saturation point when it'll all become too farcical to take seriously
anymore because, in reality, probably a third of humanity, if not more, has had sex with kids, even
when they were kids at the time themselves. This is going to hugely backlog the courts the more
accusations keep popping up left, right and center unabated.
> >>>>>> Hmm. How do I put this tactfully? Let me see.... Okay, got it: You are
> >>>>>> NUTS. Stark raving mad. A prime candidate for the psycho ward nearest you.
> >>>>>> The vast vast majority of people have not EVER had sex with a kid. I
> >>>>>> defy you to produce ANY verifiable evidence for your ridiculous assertion.
> >>>>> Well, if I said a third of humanity has had it, then that means the vast majority -
two-thirds, or 66% if numbers impress you - haven't. Gee, you're mathematically dumb.
> >>>> So just another assertion and nothing resembling proof? Yeah, that's
> >>>> what I expected....
> >>>> As for "vast vast majority", I suppose I should have said 99.99% so that
> >>>> you couldn't quibble about word meanings.
> >>> Yeah, you should've. Even though there's no such thing as a "vast vast" majority. It's
either "vast" or it isn't.
> >> So where's your proof that a third of all living people have had sex
> >> with a minor? I'm betting you've got absolutely NOTHING to back up your
> >> preposterous claim.
> > Did I say living people? I said humanity - that's everybody who has ever lived, including the
7+ billion people today. And in the US alone, if the average age for losing one's virginity is 18,
which it is, then guess what? Half will lose it over 18 and half will lose it under 18 to arrive at
that average. And in case you didn't know it, half is more than one-third, so I'm actually being
conservative as to how many kids get taken advantage of - and yes, someone under 18 is still a kid,
so don't kid yourself.
> Your claim that half of Americans lose their virginity before 18 is
> completely unsourced and you haven't even defined what it means to lose
Google it. You'll find it, if you're not too lazy.
> Some people apparently believe that if it a girl has anal
> sex, she is still a virgin afterwards. So are you talking about PIV or
> are you using some other definition of virginity? Some radfems insist
> that PIV is ALWAYS rape because woman can't *really* consent because
> some nonsense.
It's about sexual assault which covers the gamut of sexual abuse, not just PIV.
> Also, your (apparent) claim is now that HALF of everyone WHO HAS EVER
> LIVED had sex with a minor (where minor is apparently defined as 18).
> You still haven't produced any proof that the partners of those under 18
> kids were adults. In many cases, they must surely have been other minors.
So kids don't engage in sexual assault?
> You're also completely oblivious to history. In some times and cultures,
> that kind of act would guarantee a public stoning to both participants
> (if caught). I suspect it still does in some of the stricter Muslim
> countries. You're also apparently unaware that the definition of
> adulthood has changed over the years. In my lifetime alone, the age of
> majority went from 21 to 18 but it has been at different levels in other
> times and places.
Before the 20th century people were lucky to make it to 40. Back in the prehistoric era they were
even luckier to make it to 20 or 25. So yeah, going after kids was likely not much of a big deal
back then, especially when privacy was more effective, unlike today's ever-spying, ever-twittering
> Mohammed married his favourite wife, Aisha, when she was SIX and
> consummated the marriage when she was 9 (and he was much older). But
> that was apparently completely legal/acceptable at that time and place.
> (Or maybe he got a pass because he was the head of a whole religion.)
So because it's legal or religious in nature it makes it right?