Is This The Beginning of Pedophia Acceptance in Lamestream Community? - Will Tom Finally Find a Home Amongst The NAMBLAS?

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    The [img] should essentially never be used outside of chat. It does not save disk space on the server because we use an image proxy to protect your IP address and to ensure people do not rely on bad third party services like Imgur for image hosting. I hope to have a fix from XF soon. I REALLY WISH THEY'D HOTFIX THIS SO I CAN REMOVE THIS NOTICE.

Mariposa Electrique

October 4-18, Chris Will Be Happy!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
A couple weeks ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law that would allow judges to decide whether or not to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

This bill has appalled many, as it should, and yet some have failed to realize that it was simply meant to expand the discretion that was already granted to judges in the past. In a previous bill passed in California in 1944, judges were allowed to make this call, but it only applied to vaginal intercourse with a minor. Now, this new bill allows judges to expand the law, adhearing to homosexual actions. This means that an already existing evil has been turned into an even bigger one.

Although some are saying this bill does not equal the legalization of pedophilia, in a sense, it very well represents a step closer toward that heinous reality. This bill was passed in the name of “equality,” claiming that LGBTQ+ minors deserve the right to consensual sex, too. Yet, truly, the only people benefiting from this bill are those who should be charged as offenders, but are instead, being defended by the state.

A child is defined as an individual under the age of 18, as stated by UNICEF. According to their Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government should protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This includes people forcing children to have sex for money or making sexual pictures or films of them. In passing this bill and the one passed over 50 years ago, government officials in the state of California are failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation, which is their duty as elected government officials.

According to the bill, it only applies to consensual sex (whether it be vaginal, oral or anal) between a minor 14 years or older. But at 14 years of age, a minor is still just that – a minor. Most laws recognize individuals younger than 18 as minors, which is the case with U.S. law, and yet, most scientists are agreeing that individuals don’t really reach full maturity until the age of 25.

At age 18 any American citizen is allowed to vote, enlist in the army and move out on his or her own. All of these things require a lot of responsibility and emotional maturity. Other things, such as drinking alcoholic beverages, are only allowed after an individual is 21.

Clearly, the law understands that there are certain things in life that require a citizen to be older and more mature, given that they entail actions that could potentially harm the individual or other individuals.

Why then, does the government believe a 14-year-old girl or boy is mature enough to consent to sex with someone who is up to 10 years older than they are? The truth is, they are not. In passing this bill, not only is the government once more stripping children of the protection they need to have, but they are also opening doors for sex offenders to continue to go unprosecuted and uncharged. This is no longer a world children are safe to grow up in.


1626746620832.png

1626746636693.png

1626746647361.png

1626746663987.png

1626746805701.png

Above is the MAP flag, welcome to Tom's country.

What do you opine @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Didn’t know that law even was considered. This is genuinely horrifying and something that will bug me when I try to sleep tonight
This probably violates the federal Megan's Law, which requires those with sex crimes against children register. Imagine going to bat for child molesters openly and publicly.
 

Solid Snek

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Dissolving the Union really is the best course of action at this point.

The only reason people genuinely care about what California does is because California is considered to be part of "us". When California takes an already Tommie-friendly law and extends it to homo-Tommies, that means "we" are doing it. "We" have a lamestream acceptance movement. But if this was happening in some other country - Mexico, say, where I think the AOC is actually in Tommie-territory, or possibly some central African country Obama never got around to bombing - then who'd care? Sure, it'd be gross and upsetting. But so what? We just laugh at them, thank Christ we're not savages, and then maybe carpet bomb the shit out of them for good measure.

What California does bothers us because it's our country and our civilization. Dissolve the Union, let California be the Bear Flag Republic again, and suddenly it's not our problem anymore. They're just another savage Other, like Iran or North Korea, a place that sucks balls, but so long as they're over there and you're over here, then no harm done to you and yours.

(p.s. to answer OP question, though: it's technically not the "beginning". The lamestream acceptance movement began years ago - it was part of the early LGBT movement, for example, and while it got dropped from the "official" platform after Stonewall, it never really went away, and has been enjoying an increasing amount of sway on the woke left for at least the last decade or so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that pro-Tommie shit is about where "normal" LGBT was in the mid-80s; still reviled by mainstream society, but tolerated and embraced by the leftwing media class, and slowly but surely being pushed into the public conscience by those people)
 

TherapyMan

kiwifarms.net
This probably violates the federal Megan's Law, which requires those with sex crimes against children register.
SORNA is infamously complicated, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a carve-out for discretionary measures in state-specific offenses. No joke once dealt with a guy who plead guilty to misdemeanor forcible sodomy (yes, apparently a misdemeanor offense), who was not required to register under SORNA.
 

General Tug Boat

∆x∆y>=h/4π
kiwifarms.net
The entire concept of alphabet minors is something that should be completely thrown out the fucking window and people shouldnt even be encouraging around any minors. If you want to be a genetic dead end, make that determination when your brain is fully formed. California always pulls these strange suggestions when they bring up the sodomites. Minors plus any type of sexual innuendo is a big no no, and that type of talk should only response should be thunderous anger.
 

White Devil

Well I may be a monster, but you're gay.
kiwifarms.net
A couple weeks ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law that would allow judges to decide whether or not to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

This bill has appalled many, as it should, and yet some have failed to realize that it was simply meant to expand the discretion that was already granted to judges in the past. In a previous bill passed in California in 1944, judges were allowed to make this call, but it only applied to vaginal intercourse with a minor. Now, this new bill allows judges to expand the law, adhearing to homosexual actions. This means that an already existing evil has been turned into an even bigger one.

Although some are saying this bill does not equal the legalization of pedophilia, in a sense, it very well represents a step closer toward that heinous reality. This bill was passed in the name of “equality,” claiming that LGBTQ+ minors deserve the right to consensual sex, too. Yet, truly, the only people benefiting from this bill are those who should be charged as offenders, but are instead, being defended by the state.

A child is defined as an individual under the age of 18, as stated by UNICEF. According to their Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government should protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This includes people forcing children to have sex for money or making sexual pictures or films of them. In passing this bill and the one passed over 50 years ago, government officials in the state of California are failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation, which is their duty as elected government officials.

According to the bill, it only applies to consensual sex (whether it be vaginal, oral or anal) between a minor 14 years or older. But at 14 years of age, a minor is still just that – a minor. Most laws recognize individuals younger than 18 as minors, which is the case with U.S. law, and yet, most scientists are agreeing that individuals don’t really reach full maturity until the age of 25.

At age 18 any American citizen is allowed to vote, enlist in the army and move out on his or her own. All of these things require a lot of responsibility and emotional maturity. Other things, such as drinking alcoholic beverages, are only allowed after an individual is 21.

Clearly, the law understands that there are certain things in life that require a citizen to be older and more mature, given that they entail actions that could potentially harm the individual or other individuals.

Why then, does the government believe a 14-year-old girl or boy is mature enough to consent to sex with someone who is up to 10 years older than they are? The truth is, they are not. In passing this bill, not only is the government once more stripping children of the protection they need to have, but they are also opening doors for sex offenders to continue to go unprosecuted and uncharged. This is no longer a world children are safe to grow up in.


View attachment 2362783
View attachment 2362784
View attachment 2362785
View attachment 2362786
View attachment 2362793
Above is the MAP flag, welcome to Tom's country.

What do you opine @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg
This happened a year ago.
 

Divine right to rule

Per asperga ad astra
kiwifarms.net
It is only a matter of time. Conservatives failed every step of the way fighting LGBTQXYZ, they will fail at this too.
And in 30 years, Pablo Tyrone Muhammad Muttson, presidential candidate for the GOP will accuse the democrat party of being the true pedophobes.
 

M0nster

kiwifarms.net
Dissolving the Union really is the best course of action at this point. Dissolve the Union, let California be the Bear Flag Republic again, and suddenly it's not our problem anymore. They're just another savage Other, like Iran or North Korea, a place that sucks balls, but so long as they're over there and you're over here, then no harm done to you and yours.
This, this right here.
 

Retired Junta Member

Currently on the run.
kiwifarms.net
Especially west Hollywood
This part of history should be unironically studied more. Hollywood has always been horrifyingly shady (Silent cinema is filled to the brim with disgusting scandals) but people, for some reason, always considered a sort of zona franca, a privilege that was very rarely accorded to other “artistic environments”.
 

Dee Price

ugly tranny, david_price@bellsouth.net
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
A couple weeks ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law that would allow judges to decide whether or not to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

This bill has appalled many, as it should, and yet some have failed to realize that it was simply meant to expand the discretion that was already granted to judges in the past. In a previous bill passed in California in 1944, judges were allowed to make this call, but it only applied to vaginal intercourse with a minor. Now, this new bill allows judges to expand the law, adhearing to homosexual actions. This means that an already existing evil has been turned into an even bigger one.

Although some are saying this bill does not equal the legalization of pedophilia, in a sense, it very well represents a step closer toward that heinous reality. This bill was passed in the name of “equality,” claiming that LGBTQ+ minors deserve the right to consensual sex, too. Yet, truly, the only people benefiting from this bill are those who should be charged as offenders, but are instead, being defended by the state.

A child is defined as an individual under the age of 18, as stated by UNICEF. According to their Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government should protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This includes people forcing children to have sex for money or making sexual pictures or films of them. In passing this bill and the one passed over 50 years ago, government officials in the state of California are failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation, which is their duty as elected government officials.

According to the bill, it only applies to consensual sex (whether it be vaginal, oral or anal) between a minor 14 years or older. But at 14 years of age, a minor is still just that – a minor. Most laws recognize individuals younger than 18 as minors, which is the case with U.S. law, and yet, most scientists are agreeing that individuals don’t really reach full maturity until the age of 25.

At age 18 any American citizen is allowed to vote, enlist in the army and move out on his or her own. All of these things require a lot of responsibility and emotional maturity. Other things, such as drinking alcoholic beverages, are only allowed after an individual is 21.

Clearly, the law understands that there are certain things in life that require a citizen to be older and more mature, given that they entail actions that could potentially harm the individual or other individuals.

Why then, does the government believe a 14-year-old girl or boy is mature enough to consent to sex with someone who is up to 10 years older than they are? The truth is, they are not. In passing this bill, not only is the government once more stripping children of the protection they need to have, but they are also opening doors for sex offenders to continue to go unprosecuted and uncharged. This is no longer a world children are safe to grow up in.


View attachment 2362783
View attachment 2362784
View attachment 2362785
View attachment 2362786
View attachment 2362793
Above is the MAP flag, welcome to Tom's country.

What do you opine @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg
This is truly disgusting and horrifying. children should be protected from such vile people and this is totally vile.

California is a gross vile place.
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
This part of history should be unironically studied more. Hollywood has always been horrifyingly shady (Silent cinema is filled to the brim with disgusting scandals) but people, for some reason, always considered a sort of zona franca, a privilege that was very rarely accorded to other “artistic environments”.
For some reason, one of the few guys who was actually probably innocent (Fatty Arbuckle) is the one whose life was wrecked over such allegations.
 
Top