Meanwhile in Socialist California

Meanwhile in Socialist California

Other urls found in this thread:

womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/do-women-prefer-circumcised-men
sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html)
sfgate.com/politics/article/California-law-sex-offenders-Jerry-Brown-12259564.php
youtube.com/watch?v=iSPsJ1LPw28
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Under what circumstances? I don't see the issue. If you aren't going to commit a crime again, why should you continue to be punished?

spoken like a true pedophile.

as a non-american i don't always get the point of the registry.
i mean i find it sensible to register pedophiles for life (though bit orwillian, wouldn't vote against it), but fucking a 17 years old girl when you are 18 shouldn't result in such a lifelong stigma.

Lifehack: You don't have to try and be removed from the sex offender registry if you never commit a sex offense crime.

>inb4 "but you can be put on it for pissing in a park"
Very rare and circumstantial. I look at the pedo registry in my state, which tells you their conviction, and it is almost always rape/child molesters

How often does that happen? Please cite some sources.

The appropriate punishment would be genital mutilation

Following requirements for being removed;
Must be not be white
Must not be chink

Things that improve chances of being removed;
Female or ltq++ (yes left out gay)
Illegal immigrant
Expressed leftleaning views

So, did anyone in this thread actually read the article?

Even if they only lightly pet a child it's still classed as rape. Fuck the law and fuck all you moral fags

And yet you're not allowed to remove a magazine from a rife without a wrench. GG, California. GG.

Please post citations. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass. If you state has a pedo map, just look up pedos in your area, and look at their convictions. It will say if it was with a minor or not, and how long they were in prison.

I'd like to see several sources and stories backing up your claims.

Form the article:

"The state’s registry will have now have three tiers, with the first tier allowing people convicted of crimes like misdemeanor sexual battery, misdemeanor possession of child pornography and indecent exposure to petition to be removed from the registry after 10 years. Tier one has the largest number of sex offenders, with up to 65,000 people potentially falling into that category."

Time to move to California.

Is this why so many men are rapists? Because they start life having their genitals mutilated?

Now I actually want to know if being cut or uncut has a bearing on how likely you are to be a rapist...

>removed from the list for misdemeanors
>after 10 years of living as a sex offender without relapse

This seems perfectly reasonable.

I think anything with children should be indefinite. Fuck those pedo's privacy. They lost it when they feed into their morbid fetish.

Nothing wrong with that.

Also how is possessing anything immoral? The act of theft is immoral, not possessing stolen goods. The act of abusing a child and creating child pornography is immoral, not possessing CP.

US = third world country

Waaa why won't people think of the children

Good. The sex offender registry is a miscarriage of justice. It's way too easy to end up on it for bullshit "sex crimes" that aren't really hurting anyone.

...

(You)

Yea i remember that 18 year old who """raped""" his 17 year old girlfriend. Let's start removing people like that for fucking instance.

Found the pedophile.

Found the faggot who thinks legislation should be passed on emotional outbursts.

...

Tbf some people are registered sex offenders because they decided to piss on the side of a gas station during a drunk night out....not all sex offenders are pedophiles

Maybe that dude is a pedophile, so what? Perhaps you are confusing this with him being a child molester?

((()))

sex offender detected

you are partly right; but the possesion should stay illegal imo:
1) the childs privat sphere should be protected; of course this shit is spread mostly all over the internet, but not on all platforms like porn.hub etc
2) its not usual porn, many of thos are raped; why the fuck would you think it is normal to let that stuff go around without any problems?

I'm glad I don't live in that pedophile sympathizer state

It is only created because pedophiles consume it. So both are to blame for the cycle. Pedophile rings and CP holders are equally in the wrong.

so if you are caught speeding its removakl of the hands so you can never drive again


dont waste my air

Pedophile sympathizer alert

I bought $17,500 dollars worth of Scientology literature and used it as toilet paper

No thoughts on that?

>It is only created because pedophiles consume it.
We're talking about digital material here, so any logical arguments about "consumption" are moot. This is like saying I'm harming Metallica by downloading their album, because they lose money. Do they lose more money if I download it again? Does a child become more raped if some chucklefucks on the internet see pictures of it?

Uncut more likely to rape because femmes prefer cut 18 to 1.

>dumbass rednecks always criticize California
>and yet it's the most successful state by almost every metric

wow, it's almost as if liberal policies proven effective by scientific studies work better than backwards conservative/religious bullshit.

Really activates the almonds.

If you sex a child it's automatically statutory rape

The answer is Metallica failed us all, like when all the hippies became lawyers, it's like hey Hetfield, why don't you shave that goatee you satyr-looking bastard and call me in the morning

"Femmes prefer cut 18 to 1"
-Abraham Lincoln

>the most successful state by almost every metric
>voted for clinton instead of sanders in the 2016 primaries
Yeah, nope.

>Even if they only lightly pet a child
why would you want to do that? at all?

Nonsensical living costs, rampant mental illness and an overall lack of regard for reality - one yeah, it's a fucking paradise

As it should be. I don't get your point.

>6th biggest economy in the world
> not fucking their sister
> usually sunny

Yeah really hell dipped in lava.

I think his point is that if you are also a child, you are unfairly placed on a sex offender registry.

>two adolescents having sex, both are 17
>one turns 18
>statuatory rape

Actually, Adam and Eve
"Over 54 percent of women said they prefer a circumcised penis, according to a survey of 1,000 women from AdamandEve.com. Of the other half, 33 percent of women said they had no preference between cut and uncut (hey, a penis is a penis, right?) and 3 percent preferred an uncircumcised guy."
womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/do-women-prefer-circumcised-men

>an overall lack of regard for reality
Number five on the OLRR index.

They say child molesting but you have no further details than that. They don't state how old the mninor was and how old they were at the time they committed the offense. This is why it's bullshit.

Show me cited cases of that happening? And the line has to be drawn somewhere legally, but out of the millions of relationships that go through that phase of a few months of not both being adults, I have never heard of this happening.

So stop talking about theory, because it obviously doesn't happen at some alarming rate all of you keep claiming is happening.

>Over 54 percent
>12 to 1
That's closer to 1 to 1.

>look up your pedo map
>pedos in your area
>it will say if its a minor or not

somethings not adding up here.

How often is someone turned into the law because they are 18 and their partner is 17? Links please, and multiple cases since this is a huge immoral injustice!

Or drunk pissing at night in a public playground

California unemployment rate higher than national average
California's food stamp recipients rose by 123% in last decade. 4.3 million on food stamps.
34% of nation's welfare recipients are in Cali, while only 12% of population lives there.
(sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html)

I am not making claims about the frequency of this happening, so that's on that other user.

The fucked up part is that a law can define when sexual contact is or is not consensual.

No , just not crushly dumb enough to consider it was created to protect society and has been disdirected and missused .

>AdamandEve.com
Only the finest dildo salesmen may perform anecdotal surveys.

Yeah 'raping' that 17yo when you was 18 really is a sick thing and that person should be punished relentlessly for the rest of their lives.

t. Ameritards

>~3500000000 women
>1000 sample size from 1 source

because they are totally reliable statistics right ??
you gullible fuck. i bet your one of those faggots that believed the "chocolate helps in losing weight" study right ?

And 99% of men prefer a shaved vulva. Porn has a lot to answer for.

Amen...

If you are not an adult, you cannot consent. Full stop. The law is there to protect children, and when it comes to sexual crimes I do "think of the children." Many times that argument is abused and misused, but when talking about child sexual assault, I think it is appropriate to "think of the children." And the line has to be drawn somewhere. The law does not allow for ifs or maybes. And typically a 17 year old can consent with an 18 year old, at least in my state it is written into the laws for obvious reasons. But an 18 year old cannot be with someone 16 or younger. I think that is a fair system, and anyone who thinks an 18 year old should be fucking anyone 16 or younger is a pedophile (using the term as a blanket term for sex offender who fucks people who cannot legally consent.)

Maybe Foreskin Aficionado Monthly has a competing study?

sfgate.com/politics/article/California-law-sex-offenders-Jerry-Brown-12259564.php

Basically if they get out of jail and have not committed another crime after 10-20 years (I saw nothing to tell where that line was specifically) they could petition to be removed. They are apparently doing it to alleviate problems with the police since 1 in every 400 Californians are on the list and "it's hard to tell who will re-offend".

Its very simple . Steal and you get an arm removed , letch at a gril its out with the eyes , take food to feed the family as you cant afford it then out with all of there tongues ..... you fuck up ats always for life right ? dont we all need locking up away for ever to protect the other people we are locked up with given our crimes on humanity , a society run by 5 year old with guns to keep us in line .... no wait , thats miss-use of power , murderious intent and deraliction of duty ,,,,, kill all the babys the murdering fucks .... oh i did a swore , thats a crime against society


you see where this is going yet ? kids need protection for sure , we have a duty to protect those whom cant help themseleves but this isnt it . You do not villify people for past crimes , you monitor and make sure the fucks arnt upto the same tricks on punishment beyond what they already served . This means a kiddy fucker gets 30 years if he takes on a job that involves childre , this means a teacher who fucked her pupil isnt a monster forever after the punishment is served .

considering their gdp is higher than any other state by 800 billion.

and is 2 trillion higher than average state.

id say there more than pulling their weight.

54 to 3 = 18 to 1, among those with a preference
It's a study. It rustled your jimmies. kek
I haven't seen that study. I actually like a nice hairy bush, but porn still had bushes when I was a kid

Life is not black and white. The law does not like nor allow for grey area (it's too much paperwork). Laws can be cruel and heartless. Soceity can be cruel and heartless simply because they have been taught ridiculous ideals and fed false information. Blinkered attitudes whereby nobody wants to even hear the other sides argument because it's 'icky'. I was watching some TV shit where they point the cameras at the viewers and they was showing an operation. The amount of wincing was humerous. Yet the operations need to be performed to save lives. I doubt there would be so many deaths if people actually could handle a bit of blood.

Emotional and irrational knee jerk responses serve fucking nobody.

>If you are not an adult, you cannot consent.
Are you implying that your fundamental brain structure changes the instant you become 18? You are suddenly enlightened to the consequences of your actions?

Age is arbitrary. There must be a better metric by which to base these laws.

That's fine. But it is interesting that in the liberal utopia, welfare recipients account for a third of all recipients nationally.
I suppose some go to California to mooch off what they know will be a lavish welfare state. That's one reason to be okay with it, even if you're conservative. Just nudge your state's shiftless and idle residents west.

Gee, it's almost as if businesses go there not for their laws or people, but rather their lax taxation. Dumbass.

I don't understand your argument, as it seems we are on the same page. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

>747381034
If only those enlightened to the consequences of their actions could have sex, we wouldn't need abortion.

i hope you understand that being a "pedophile" to 13+ women, has been normal MUCH longer than it hasn't.

the fact your so opposed to this means you were rapes, or had to deal with the bullshit of someone else getting raped.

how often does 18 year olds fuck 17 year olds? Literally all the time.

youtube.com/watch?v=iSPsJ1LPw28

I am saying that as a society, we have decided that 18 is a goo point to draw the line for everyone. Because the majority of people are mentally and physically prepared for the responsibilities. So that is the metric which is used when creating these laws. In other countries it is even higher, and in others lower. I think in the USA it is actually fairly low since most 18 year old people are still dumb as fuck and think they have a single clue what is going on. But as a society we decided that is when you are free to think for yourself, so I accept that. Any lower would be obscene.

My argument is that people are ignorant assholes. Every case should be weighed on a scale of 'harm'. But the law is not made that way. It is a line in the sand that must not be corssed plane and simple. Life does not work that way.

>try and (verb)
fuck you, you massive fucking faggot. try to get better at english.

Well in my state those two can legally fuck. 17+18 is okay, but 18+anyone 16 or under is statutory rape. Maybe Commiefornia should update their laws to make sense instead of being pedo sympathizers.

The legal age of concent in most countries are between 12 and 16...

>menustration
kek

Meanwhile in other states
>be a femanon
>accuse OP of rape
>OP in registry forever

not always

How can you prove in court a level of harm? If we allowed people 16 and under to consent with 18+ adults, and the child realizes quickly into it that they didn't know what they were agreeing too... but the adult abuses the relationship anyway and decides to rape them.. how can that be proven in court? Who was harmed? (And yes, consent can be stopped at anytime, but anyone. You are not entitled to sex because someone said yes at first. If they change their mind half way through and verbally tell you to stop, you must stop or it is rape.)

4.4% unemployment rate of taxes
4.8% unemployment rate of Cali
5.2% unemployment rate of new York.

doesn't seem that huge in comparison to their gdp

so your arguing that california is a socialist state, because they have lax tax laws ?

you know thats not how that works right ?

No.

Keep listening until he talks about the median ages of marriage. Child marriages as young as 12 did happen but were far from normal and mostly were done by the upper upper echelons of society.

>Conflating marriage age with sexual activity.

>747381310
Didn't say it was huge. Said it was worse than the national average.

Are you retarded? Can you not read shit correctly? Socialism is irrelevant. There is no correlation with California's gdp and their ideologies. Companies go there because they get to keep more money, not vice versa.

16 years old child innocent.... and 18 year old mature man that abuses the "child" leeel

Because the law is on consent only and deems that a minor cannot consent. I'm pretty damned sure a girl over the age of puberty can consent even if they are misinformed and just acting on hormonal changes. If a girl says she wants it and in court says she wanted it it makes no fucking difference in the eyes of the law. The burden of consent is put on the older party. Which is complete nonsense.

The laws see's it are rape regardless of whether the minor says they consented or not which is a fucking travesty of justice. Especially if te minor deems they were not harmed by it.

Girls loose the virginity as a rule at 15 , lads a year after , based on this theres maybe 200 million in the US who sould be on your register ....You cant quantify maturity and readiness for sex into a number , the number should be lower and crimes considered such as grooming a child to be enacted . Bellow 13 then its shooting fish in a barrel that its then obscene . Chances are your mother had sex before your given age , im sure you would rush to place her on a register .

Is this what Californians actually believe?

Sorry
Was aimed at

Yupp, and this is now a troll thread. We almost made it to 100 posts before the trolls came about. Goodbye trolls.

3/10, made me reply