17
   

Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

NSFW Forums: News, Pervert, Child Pornography, Perverts, Creeps
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Fri 16 Dec, 2011 07:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Where did you gain the assumption that I thought men suck? I stated women are naive, when young and that is a fact.. Are you a woman? No... The point is very clear .

Countless of women are used, abused at any age, but more so, their experience in youth in general is not one they want to remember, unless their first encounter turns out to be their husband.

I think i also made it very clear that I am referring to "girls" not "females" therefore not women..

You like to "choose" what to take from what people say and twist it, and you like to "choose" not to answer as well, yet you will ask.

It truly is all about you isn't it.

How many girls did you use when you were 13 - 22 .... I can just imagine.

For the record, I am talking broadly.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Fri 16 Dec, 2011 07:56 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Chicken Little and Ygor are going on about 17 year olds because that's their starting point. If the age limit for participating in pornographic films were lowed to 17 they would start going on about 16 year olds, then 15 year olds, and so on, until they reach the age they deem acceptable to abuse children. Probably about 2 or 3 judging by their recent posts.


Or that this is the Internet, Police google words such as "Child Porn" able2k would definately come up in Google:)

Something about Computers and how "they" can't access any records of Child Porn on their Computers gives light don't you think?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 16 Dec, 2011 08:13 pm

Children r immorally screwn out of their natural right to vote.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 16 Dec, 2011 09:29 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Chicken Little and Ygor are going on about 17 year olds because that's their starting point. If the age limit for participating in pornographic films were lowed to 17 they would start going on about 16 year olds, then 15 year olds, and so on, until they reach the age they deem acceptable to abuse children. Probably about 2 or 3 judging by their recent posts.

I think that the AOC should be 15, but that 18 to be in porn is fine. Sex workers should have to be 18 as well.....I think youth should be free to be sexual in their personal relationships with whom ever they want, but they should need to turn into adults before they earn a living at it.


I Have never said anything to the contrary...Pushy is making up **** again because the facts dont work for his argument.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:12 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I think that the AOC should be 15, but that 18 to be in porn is fine.


Well why don't you take Bill to task for demanding to see 17 year olds in porn films?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:13 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Actually, I think he means to say that you are stupid, trying to sound intelligent, but failing.

I could be wrong ...

Spot on mate.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:27 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
If the age limit for participating in pornographic films were lowered to 17 they would start going on about 16 year olds, then 15 year olds, and so on, until they reach the age they deem acceptable to abuse children. Probably about 2 or 3 judging by their recent posts.
I Have never said anything to the contrary...Pushy is making up **** again because the facts dont work for his argument.


I'm making a logical deduction based on the sick delusional **** you so obviously are. If you read my post I say if the age limit for participating in pornographic films is lowered you will change tack and become more extreme. It hasn't, and you haven't. Same with the age of consent, sexually abusing a 15 year old is just your starting point. Even you're not that stupid that you'll admit to wanting to abuse 3 year olds from the outset.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:32 am
@FOUND SOUL,
FOUND SOUL wrote:

Where did you gain the assumption that I thought men suck? I stated women are naive, when young and that is a fact.. Are you a woman? No... The point is very clear .


Chicken Little can't see how ridiculous his argument is. In any situation he takes the side of the abuser, never the victim. In his twisted world, rape doesn't really exist as a crime.

Similarly he labels all women who disagree with him as man-haters. It's a knee-jerk, kindergarden reaction because he's way too stupid to articulate any other response.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:36 am
@izzythepush,
Izzy he also feeds off of anger, remember he is in control, or so he thinks
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:42 am
@FOUND SOUL,
He's delusional. He thinks having to dress up in leather and abuse/be abused by women in order to achieve an orgasm makes him some sort of heroic freedom fighter. It doesn't, it makes him a rather pathetic inadequate, and one of the biggest jokes on A2K.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 03:47 am
@izzythepush,
I actually don't have a problem with people's sexual preference persay, I have a problem when children are involved...

Or, women who are controlled and are abused for self gain.

But, I also know that anyone that "thinks he's right all the time, and has to have control" will go to the grave ensuring he has control, that's why I see him laughing, when he gets people worked up, or when he reads something that he knows is right only he has to, find a way to counter-act it, if he can't he puts you on ignore:)

izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 05:12 am
@FOUND SOUL,
I 'm the same regarding sexual preference, but a need for S&M doesn't make you interesting, or a freedom fighter, it does make you rather pathetic, as Max Mosley has just found out. He recently testified to the Levenson enquiry that instead of being known for his work in F1 racing, he will be forever known as a man who paid dominatrixes to stick dildos up his bum. All thanks to a NOW expose, and as such people snigger whenever they hear his name.

I have no problem with what consenting adults get up to, but needing to be spanked doesn't make you heroic, it makes you an object of ridicule. That's the real world for you.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 05:34 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
And your point is?


Because the damn government is threatening teenagers with the harsh and I mean harsh child porn laws penalty for one think attacking the very class of people that the law was suppose to protect.

Second because pictures of one day younger then 18 under those crazy laws call for the same repeat the same minimum punishment as having pictures of infants being rape.

Third I do not know about you but I can not tell by looking at a picture of a naked female at 17 years and 364 days if she is below that age or more so anyone who had pictures of women up to their mid 20s had no real idea if they might had so call child porn.

The law is insane for all the above reasons and many more in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 05:39 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
A 17 year old girl by the way, sending a nude photo to her boyfriend was probably co-erced into doing so, by the greed of a child himself, the boy.


So you are one of those people who view females as victims of males that need all kind of special protects from evil men?

They are clearly not the equal of males who can get them to do anything at all and we are in error when we treat them the same?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 05:43 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
I stated women are naive, when young and that is a fact.. Are you a woman?


An male are not naive to the same degree if not more so?

I guess we should had never given women full citizenship and we should go back to the good old days when women was under the control and protection of their fathers and then of their husbands or bothers or uncles or whatever.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 05:49 am
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Or, women who are controlled and are abused for self gain.


As men had no problem controlling women for their own gain I would think you would support taking citizenship and the obligations and rights of citizenship away from them and move back to the time when they had a male guardian of one kind or another to look after their best interests for all their lives.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 06:10 am
@BillRM,
Drooling over Found Soul now, you sad gimp? You're not fooling anyone. You're not concerned about the rights of teenagers, you just want to be able to exploit them legally.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 06:13 am
Hawkeye are you as amaze as I am as the lack of respect that some posters here view women as a class.

Just do not fit into my world view that women by their very nature are less able to used good judgments when they are in emotional relationships then men are.

Strange as I was raised around strong women and had have dealings with many strong women all of my life including my wife and I can not picture women as a class as victims in waiting.

The idea that women as a class can be talk into going against their best interests by men more then men as a class can be and therefore need all kinds and manners of special protections seems complete nonsense to me.

In fact it is hurtful nonsense as you can not put into place special protections for women without at the same time reducing their rights to act in what they consider their best interest.

BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 06:24 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You're not concerned about the rights of teenagers


Sorry our friend had been talking about females in general and that a teenage boy for example pressuring a teenage female to send a sexual picture would be the only likely reason for her doing so. In other word a female teenager is not a match for a male teenager and looking back five decades I needed to laugh very hard on that concept.

He had also used the term woman and women in his postings, as in women being abused, so he is not just talking about minors in his postings but females of all ages.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2011 06:27 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You're not concerned about the rights of teenagers, you just want to be able to exploit them legally.


Yes it is far better to charge teenagers under the child porn laws for sending sexual pictures between themselves of themselves.

Doing so sure the hell stop them for being exploits by dirty old men. LOL.

By the way we should lock up both the girl and the boy in a sextexting case in your opinion?

Can even a brain dead Brit support doing so?
 

Related Topics

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn - Discussion by tsarstepan
T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
RIP Professor Snape - Alan Rickman Passes at 69 - Discussion by engineer
Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front - Discussion by gungasnake
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Berry's desperate 911 call to police - Discussion by smithy988
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class
  3. » Page 46
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 10:13:11
▲ ▼