http://www.cbsnews.com/news/predator-teacher-gets-22-years-for-sex-with-students/
Quote"Predator" teacher gets 22 years for sex with students
LAKELAND, Fla. - A former Lakeland teacher who admitted to having sex with several of her students will spend the next 22 years behind bars, reports CBS affiliate WTSP.
On Thursday, a judge called Jennifer Fichter, 30, a predator, as he pronounced her sentence. Fichter was reportedly first accused of having inappropriate conduct with an eighth grader in 2008. She resigned from that school district later that year and in August 2011 was hired by another district. She is accused of having sex with a 17-year-old student just one month after starting her new job.
"All I can say is I'm so sorry," the former English teacher told family members and the court.
When she was first arrested, Fichter would reportedly grin during her hearings, but the former teacher at Lakeland's Central Florida Aerospace Academy wept in court on Thursday, apologized and asked for mercy.
"I wish I could take it back, and my words are not going to suffice I know that," said Fichter.
In a recorded phone call played in court, Fichter admitted to aborting a pregnancy with one of her young victims. She also confessed to having multiple sexual encounters with at least two other boys.
"You were pregnant and had an abortion, is that true?" one of the victim's mothers asked her in a recording.
"Yes, that's true," replied Fichter.
The judge heard from a psychologist who said Fichter had made bad choices and her father asked the court to get his daughter help.
But victims and their family members say the 30-year-old former teacher had shattered their lives by preying on her teenage students, whom she met at parties, off-campus locations, and even her own apartment for sex.
"It hurts," said one mother addressing the court, "I saw myself losing my son before my very eyes and there was nothing I could do to reach him."
Prosecutors say Fichter lied to the victims' parents and had the students lie on her behalf, knowing she would be in trouble if she was ever caught.
Fichter faced up to 15 years on each of 37 counts of sexual contact with a minor.
The prosecutor said that just because Fichter is female, and her male students were willing participants, does not make them any less victimized.
"If a man came in here today, your honor, and told you that he continually had sex with his teenage female students over a period of years, because it made him feel good about himself, he would be buried under the jail," said the prosecutor.
The judge sentenced Fichter to 22 years, which was three years less than a plea deal she had rejected in April.
Fichter still faces charges in Hillsborough County, for having sex with some of the same students in that jurisdiction.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.dailystar.co.uk%2Fdynamic%2F1%2Fphotos%2F286000%2F620x%2F559a43e795b88_Untitled1.jpg&hash=4d6a61f183e8a476e8ccad336ab712d7f2f5255b)
What the hell are you?
We take our sex crimes very seriously insanely.
I am all for arresting these teachers and getting them removed from their jobs but man this woman might as well just shoot herself now with that kind of sentence. And she gets to be a sex criminal forever with all that goes with it. Granted she may be an extreme case of student screwing teachers, that is a pretty sick pattern of abuse of many kids over a long period of time.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 07:20:31 AM
And she gets to be a sex criminal forever with all that goes with it.
That never is a problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/us/teenagers-jailing-brings-a-call-to-fix-sex-offender-registries.html
QuoteTeenager's Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries
ELKHART, Ind. — Until one day in December, Zachery Anderson was a typical 19-year-old in a small Midwestern city.
He studied computer science at the local community college. He lived with his parents and two younger brothers in a sun-filled home on the St. Joseph River, where framed family photos hang from the walls and a pontoon boat is docked outside.
And he dated in the way that so many American teenagers do today: digitally and semi-anonymously, through apps where prospects emerge with the swipe of a finger and meetings are arranged after the exchanges of photos and texts.
In December, Mr. Anderson met a girl through Hot or Not, a dating app, and after some online flirting, he drove to pick her up at her house in Michigan, just miles over the state line. They had sex in a playground in Niles, the police report said.
That sexual encounter has landed Mr. Anderson in a Michigan jail, and he now faces a lifetime entanglement in the legal system. The girl, who by her own account told Mr. Anderson that she was 17 — a year over the age of consent in Michigan — was actually 14.
The case came to the attention of the police after the girl's mother contacted them, concerned about her whereabouts. They were at her home when the girl returned, according to The South Bend Tribune. A few weeks later, the paper said, the police visited Mr. Anderson, who cooperated and, in February, turned himself in. He was arrested and charged and, after pleading guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, was sentenced to 90 days in jail and probation.
As an Indiana resident, Mr. Anderson will most likely be listed on a sex offender registry for life, a sanction that requires him to be in regular contact with the authorities, to allow searches of his home every 90 days and to live far from schools, parks and other public places. His probation will also require him to stay off the Internet, though he needs it to study computer science.
Some advocates and legal authorities are holding up Mr. Anderson's case as the latest example of the overreach of sex offender registries, which gained favor in the 1990s as a tool for monitoring pedophiles and other people who committed sexual crimes. In the decades since, the registries have grown in number and scope; the nearly 800,000 people on registries in the United States go beyond adults who have sexually assaulted other adults or minors. Also listed are people found guilty of lesser offenses that run the gamut from urinating publicly to swapping lewd texts.
As Mr. Anderson's defenders see it, his story is a parable of the digital age: the collision of the temporary relationships that young people develop on the Internet and the increasing criminalization of sexual activity through the expansion of online sex offender registries.
"The whole registry is a horrible mistake," said William Buhl, a former judge in Michigan who has publicly argued that laws governing registries ought to be relaxed. "I think it's utterly ridiculous to take teenage sex and make it a felony. This guy is obviously not a pedophile."
But once Mr. Anderson leaves jail in the coming week, he will be bound by the same restrictions that apply to more extreme sex offenders, tagged with a "scarlet letter" for life, as his father, Lester Anderson, put it.
"At the end of the day, he might be out of jail, but he'll still be in his own jail," his father said. "He has to walk down the street every day and think: 'Am I too close to a school? Is there a child who's close to me?' "
There are fledgling efforts in some states to change sex offender registries so that they do not include juveniles or those guilty of minor offenses. In California, the corrections department announced in March that the state would ease residency requirements for many sex offenders, allowing certain low-risk individuals to live in areas closer to schools and parks that were previously off limits. Many sex offenders have ended up broke and homeless, living in clusters under freeways because they are routinely rejected by employers and landlords, and because they are banned from living in so many neighborhoods that contain public places like parks.
Brenda V. Jones, the executive director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, an advocacy group, said cases like Mr. Anderson's are common in many states. Frequently, a judge will give the lightest possible sentence, but cannot change the restrictions involving the offender registry.
"It's like a conviction on steroids," Ms. Jones said. "Being on a registry becomes a liability for employers, no matter how minor the offense was. Other people will say: 'I saw your employee on the Internet. He's a sex offender, and I will not come to your establishment.' "
Changing the laws has been a slow fight. "People talk about it, but when you actually try to introduce legislation, lawmakers start to get really nervous," Ms. Jones said. "Because, oh, my God, we're going to be soft on sex offenders."
Mr. Anderson's parents are fighting back on behalf of their son, saying that while they believe he made a mistake, his punishment is extreme. They have been joined by the girl, who is now 15, and her mother, who have also defended Mr. Anderson, appearing in a District Court in Michigan this spring to ask a judge for leniency.
"I don't want him to be a sex offender, because he really is not," the mother said, according to court transcripts. Her daughter told the judge that she felt "nothing should happen to Zach," adding, "If you feel like something should, I feel like the lowest thing possible." The judge, Dennis M. Wiley of Berrien County District Court in Michigan, was apparently not swayed by their testimony. After Mr. Anderson pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, the judge declined to grant him a special status intended for young offenders. The status, under the state's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, would have spared him inclusion on the sex offender registry and erased the conviction from his record if he did not violate probation.
During a sentencing hearing in April, Judge Wiley criticized online dating in general and berated Mr. Anderson for using the Internet to meet women.
"You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women, to meet and have sex with," he said. "That seems to be part of our culture now. Meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever."
The prosecutor, Jerry Vigansky, did not oppose a Holmes Act sentence, but noted that it had not been applied to two similar cases in recent months.
For some reason, Mr. Vigansky told the judge in court, this generation seems to think it is "O.K. to go online to find somebody and then to quickly hook up for sexual gratification."
"That's not a good message to send into the community," he said.
Mr. Anderson and his defenders say it is precisely that culture that makes it difficult to determine if a prospective sexual partner is under age, when introductions occur online and outside traditional social networks. It is also easy to misrepresent personal details, including age.
"When somebody impersonates an adult, that should be a factor," said Scott Grabel, Mr. Anderson's lawyer. "You could argue that he wasn't negligent. I don't think this kid should be labeled a sex offender: That outcome doesn't do anybody any good." Mr. Grabel declined to make Mr. Anderson available for an interview.
But Rick Jones, a state senator in Michigan and one of the authors of the state's sex offender registry laws, dismissed that defense. The law requires people to be responsible for determining the age of their sexual partners, he said, and in a case like Mr. Anderson's, the punishment seems appropriate.
"A 19-year-old knows that you have to be very careful, and you certainly should not be having sex with a 14-year-old," Mr. Jones said in an interview. "In my opinion, society, over several decades, has become looser. People are meeting online, and that creates all sorts of problems. Now, people have all these crazy apps where you can locate people in your vicinity where people want to have a relationship. You should be very careful."
He said he was not bothered by the terms of Mr. Anderson's probation, which require him to stop using the Internet for five years.
"There are lots of jobs that don't involve computers," he said. "There are all sorts of trades. Truck drivers, welding. There are other opportunities."
That kind of talk infuriates the Andersons. They said the terms of their son's probation are unnecessarily severe and outdated, and would make it impossible for him to continue to attend college.
"No computer for five years, no smartphone? He can't have an email address," his father said. "To me, that's wrong. That's like taking away electricity or heat or gas to somebody, in today's world."
With their son's release from jail set for Thursday, they were scrambling to find him a new place to live and satisfy the sex offender restrictions on housing. Their own house is less than 1,000 feet from a public boat launch, which is considered a public park under state law.
Since they have shared their son's experience with local newspapers and elected officials, they said, they have received emails and Facebook messages from parents whose children have been punished for similar offenses and are now on the sex offender registry for life.
Their lawyer has asked to withdraw his client's guilty plea so he can argue for a lighter sentence. A hearing is set for Aug. 5.
"A young person, they make one mistake and all of a sudden they're classified as a loser for the rest of their life," Mr. Anderson's mother, Amanda Anderson, said. "This scenario should never result in jail time or a life of anxiety."
Looks crazy, would not bang.
Rick Jones is an idiot. His points do not even make sense. The point of a sex offender registry is to alert people to dangerous rapists not increase the number of welders or force people to do careful background checks on anonymous sex apps. And I love all the responsibility is not on him the law maker to write laws that actually serve a purpose to society but 19 year olds to be super responsible....you know the people not even considered responsible enough to drink. Typical politician garbage. Instead of defending it as good policy he is reciting fairy stories about how his draconian and stupid law is not so bad. Ok maybe it is not a death sentence (and I disagree it is basically a death sentence to your career and ability to live as an adult in our society), but what public good is it serving Mr. Jones?
Sure send him to jail for a few months. Have him take some classes and go on probation. But banning somebody from computer use and putting them on a sex offender registry is just hilariously stupid for a crime like this.
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2015, 07:38:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 07:20:31 AM
And she gets to be a sex criminal forever with all that goes with it.
That never is a problem.
Judge's comments seem out of line - so what if someone wants to look online for sex - but I don't think I'd consider it a minor offense to have sex with a 14 year old in a playground.
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2015, 07:38:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 07:20:31 AM
And she gets to be a sex criminal forever with all that goes with it.
That never is a problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/us/teenagers-jailing-brings-a-call-to-fix-sex-offender-registries.html
QuoteTeenager's Jailing Brings a Call to Fix Sex Offender Registries
ELKHART, Ind. — Until one day in December, Zachery Anderson was a typical 19-year-old in a small Midwestern city.
He studied computer science at the local community college. He lived with his parents and two younger brothers in a sun-filled home on the St. Joseph River, where framed family photos hang from the walls and a pontoon boat is docked outside.
And he dated in the way that so many American teenagers do today: digitally and semi-anonymously, through apps where prospects emerge with the swipe of a finger and meetings are arranged after the exchanges of photos and texts.
In December, Mr. Anderson met a girl through Hot or Not, a dating app, and after some online flirting, he drove to pick her up at her house in Michigan, just miles over the state line. They had sex in a playground in Niles, the police report said.
That sexual encounter has landed Mr. Anderson in a Michigan jail, and he now faces a lifetime entanglement in the legal system. The girl, who by her own account told Mr. Anderson that she was 17 — a year over the age of consent in Michigan — was actually 14.
The case came to the attention of the police after the girl's mother contacted them, concerned about her whereabouts. They were at her home when the girl returned, according to The South Bend Tribune. A few weeks later, the paper said, the police visited Mr. Anderson, who cooperated and, in February, turned himself in. He was arrested and charged and, after pleading guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, was sentenced to 90 days in jail and probation.
As an Indiana resident, Mr. Anderson will most likely be listed on a sex offender registry for life, a sanction that requires him to be in regular contact with the authorities, to allow searches of his home every 90 days and to live far from schools, parks and other public places. His probation will also require him to stay off the Internet, though he needs it to study computer science.
Some advocates and legal authorities are holding up Mr. Anderson's case as the latest example of the overreach of sex offender registries, which gained favor in the 1990s as a tool for monitoring pedophiles and other people who committed sexual crimes. In the decades since, the registries have grown in number and scope; the nearly 800,000 people on registries in the United States go beyond adults who have sexually assaulted other adults or minors. Also listed are people found guilty of lesser offenses that run the gamut from urinating publicly to swapping lewd texts.
As Mr. Anderson's defenders see it, his story is a parable of the digital age: the collision of the temporary relationships that young people develop on the Internet and the increasing criminalization of sexual activity through the expansion of online sex offender registries.
"The whole registry is a horrible mistake," said William Buhl, a former judge in Michigan who has publicly argued that laws governing registries ought to be relaxed. "I think it's utterly ridiculous to take teenage sex and make it a felony. This guy is obviously not a pedophile."
But once Mr. Anderson leaves jail in the coming week, he will be bound by the same restrictions that apply to more extreme sex offenders, tagged with a "scarlet letter" for life, as his father, Lester Anderson, put it.
"At the end of the day, he might be out of jail, but he'll still be in his own jail," his father said. "He has to walk down the street every day and think: 'Am I too close to a school? Is there a child who's close to me?' "
There are fledgling efforts in some states to change sex offender registries so that they do not include juveniles or those guilty of minor offenses. In California, the corrections department announced in March that the state would ease residency requirements for many sex offenders, allowing certain low-risk individuals to live in areas closer to schools and parks that were previously off limits. Many sex offenders have ended up broke and homeless, living in clusters under freeways because they are routinely rejected by employers and landlords, and because they are banned from living in so many neighborhoods that contain public places like parks.
Brenda V. Jones, the executive director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, an advocacy group, said cases like Mr. Anderson's are common in many states. Frequently, a judge will give the lightest possible sentence, but cannot change the restrictions involving the offender registry.
"It's like a conviction on steroids," Ms. Jones said. "Being on a registry becomes a liability for employers, no matter how minor the offense was. Other people will say: 'I saw your employee on the Internet. He's a sex offender, and I will not come to your establishment.' "
Changing the laws has been a slow fight. "People talk about it, but when you actually try to introduce legislation, lawmakers start to get really nervous," Ms. Jones said. "Because, oh, my God, we're going to be soft on sex offenders."
Mr. Anderson's parents are fighting back on behalf of their son, saying that while they believe he made a mistake, his punishment is extreme. They have been joined by the girl, who is now 15, and her mother, who have also defended Mr. Anderson, appearing in a District Court in Michigan this spring to ask a judge for leniency.
"I don't want him to be a sex offender, because he really is not," the mother said, according to court transcripts. Her daughter told the judge that she felt "nothing should happen to Zach," adding, "If you feel like something should, I feel like the lowest thing possible." The judge, Dennis M. Wiley of Berrien County District Court in Michigan, was apparently not swayed by their testimony. After Mr. Anderson pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, the judge declined to grant him a special status intended for young offenders. The status, under the state's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, would have spared him inclusion on the sex offender registry and erased the conviction from his record if he did not violate probation.
During a sentencing hearing in April, Judge Wiley criticized online dating in general and berated Mr. Anderson for using the Internet to meet women.
"You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women, to meet and have sex with," he said. "That seems to be part of our culture now. Meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever."
The prosecutor, Jerry Vigansky, did not oppose a Holmes Act sentence, but noted that it had not been applied to two similar cases in recent months.
For some reason, Mr. Vigansky told the judge in court, this generation seems to think it is "O.K. to go online to find somebody and then to quickly hook up for sexual gratification."
"That's not a good message to send into the community," he said.
Mr. Anderson and his defenders say it is precisely that culture that makes it difficult to determine if a prospective sexual partner is under age, when introductions occur online and outside traditional social networks. It is also easy to misrepresent personal details, including age.
"When somebody impersonates an adult, that should be a factor," said Scott Grabel, Mr. Anderson's lawyer. "You could argue that he wasn't negligent. I don't think this kid should be labeled a sex offender: That outcome doesn't do anybody any good." Mr. Grabel declined to make Mr. Anderson available for an interview.
But Rick Jones, a state senator in Michigan and one of the authors of the state's sex offender registry laws, dismissed that defense. The law requires people to be responsible for determining the age of their sexual partners, he said, and in a case like Mr. Anderson's, the punishment seems appropriate.
"A 19-year-old knows that you have to be very careful, and you certainly should not be having sex with a 14-year-old," Mr. Jones said in an interview. "In my opinion, society, over several decades, has become looser. People are meeting online, and that creates all sorts of problems. Now, people have all these crazy apps where you can locate people in your vicinity where people want to have a relationship. You should be very careful."
He said he was not bothered by the terms of Mr. Anderson's probation, which require him to stop using the Internet for five years.
"There are lots of jobs that don't involve computers," he said. "There are all sorts of trades. Truck drivers, welding. There are other opportunities."
That kind of talk infuriates the Andersons. They said the terms of their son's probation are unnecessarily severe and outdated, and would make it impossible for him to continue to attend college.
"No computer for five years, no smartphone? He can't have an email address," his father said. "To me, that's wrong. That's like taking away electricity or heat or gas to somebody, in today's world."
With their son's release from jail set for Thursday, they were scrambling to find him a new place to live and satisfy the sex offender restrictions on housing. Their own house is less than 1,000 feet from a public boat launch, which is considered a public park under state law.
Since they have shared their son's experience with local newspapers and elected officials, they said, they have received emails and Facebook messages from parents whose children have been punished for similar offenses and are now on the sex offender registry for life.
Their lawyer has asked to withdraw his client's guilty plea so he can argue for a lighter sentence. A hearing is set for Aug. 5.
"A young person, they make one mistake and all of a sudden they're classified as a loser for the rest of their life," Mr. Anderson's mother, Amanda Anderson, said. "This scenario should never result in jail time or a life of anxiety."
The judge appears to be unhinged.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
Judge's comments seem out of line - so what if someone wants to look online for sex - but I don't think I'd consider it a minor offense to have sex with a 14 year old in a playground.
If they are also a teenager? I am not even saying this should not be a crime worthy of a jail sentence of several months or a year. But this person is not a sexual predator. They thought they were having consensual sex with a person around their age.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 07:48:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
Judge's comments seem out of line - so what if someone wants to look online for sex - but I don't think I'd consider it a minor offense to have sex with a 14 year old in a playground.
If they are also a teenager?
19 to 14? No, I don't think that's a small enough difference to call it minor. I agree that he shouldn't basically have his life ruined but this is hardly like oops, he was speeding!
1/2x + 7
I came across (shut up) a porn once where they were at a playground, and I nexted it. Not into that.
I agree some punishment is in order - possibly with an evaluation if he could reasonably think the girl was of legal age at the time (though obviously he could have asked for some form of ID if he was in doubt).
But I have some issue with the comments from the judge and prosecution. Their job IMHO is to evaluate the case on its legal merits and, if possible, be impartial about it. Not to send a message to the community or them darn kids with their newfangled apps and devices.
The senator is an idiot, but as a politician he's excused. :P
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 07:49:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 07:48:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 07:47:41 AM
Judge's comments seem out of line - so what if someone wants to look online for sex - but I don't think I'd consider it a minor offense to have sex with a 14 year old in a playground.
If they are also a teenager?
19 to 14? No, I don't think that's a small enough difference to call it minor. I agree that he shouldn't basically have his life ruined but this is hardly like oops, he was speeding!
Yeah, as I said, this was a serious crime and he should pay a big price for it. But he is not a serial rapist who society needs protection from.
14 year old girls can easily look 17 or 18 though so without actually doing some research he couldn't have known that. It is not like he could have checked her driver's license or anything.
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2015, 07:56:34 AM
But I have some issue with the comments from the judge and prosecution. Their job IMHO is to evaluate the case on its legal merits and, if possible, be impartial about it. Not to send a message to the community or them darn kids with their newfangled apps and devices.
Well they did end all online sex hookups.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 08:00:59 AM
14 year old girls can easily look 17 or 18 though so without actually doing some research he couldn't have known that. It is not like he could have checked her driver's license or anything.
I don't think it is a relevant excuse / I don't think we've ever allowed that excuse?
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 08:00:59 AM
14 year old girls can easily look 17 or 18 though so without actually doing some research he couldn't have known that. It is not like he could have checked her driver's license or anything.
I don't think it is a relevant excuse / I don't think we've ever allowed that excuse?
I think that is a perfectly relevant piece of evidence in determining if somebody is a dangerous threat to society versus an irresponsible person doing something they assumed was fine and legal. Is intent important in criminal law?
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 08:00:59 AM
14 year old girls can easily look 17 or 18 though so without actually doing some research he couldn't have known that. It is not like he could have checked her driver's license or anything.
I don't think it is a relevant excuse / I don't think we've ever allowed that excuse?
It is true that this excuse has never been allowed, but that does not mean that this attitude is not retarded. Strict criminal liability as a concept is beyond repugnant.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
She is a sexual predator who was grooming these kids and evidence suggests fucked them up pretty good. And this was many kids over many years.
And it is not about inability to find normal partners. Some of the most infamous sexual predators in history also had perfectly normal families on the side.
Nice to see women being treat equally for once
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
My impression of such situations is that it is the very 'forbidden-ness' of the sex that these folks find exciting and attractive. So the availability of normal age-appropriate boyfriends would not have made a difference.
Leaving aside the senselessness of strict liability (particularly for a teenager who can barely be assumed to not commit criminal acts that require a mens rea), have any of these "sorry, I'm really 14" people ever been arrested for criminal fraud, or at least sued for tortious fraud? Seems like it would be an easy case to make.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
22 years is excessive for any crime, and basically amounts to torture (often, it also amounts to a death sentence).
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
22 years is excessive for any crime, and basically amounts to torture (often, it also amounts to a death sentence).
It's enhanced torture techniques. :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
22 years is excessive for any crime, and basically amounts to torture (often, it also amounts to a death sentence).
I'll have no problem with 22 years if a teacher raped his students :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2015, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
My impression of such situations is that it is the very 'forbidden-ness' of the sex that these folks find exciting and attractive. So the availability of normal age-appropriate boyfriends would not have made a difference.
I understand Mono's confusion, though. My assumption is usually that the female teacher is unattractive and doe these things out of desperation. And a lot of times that is the case. It's just when she is actually attractive that it's news, I guess.
Based on the flood of these stories coming out in the internet age I see so pattern at all by attractiveness. HOTT and non-HOTT women get in trouble for this sort of thing.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:40:02 AM
I'll have no problem with 22 years if a teacher raped his students :mad:
Predators do not generally forcibly have sex with kids they manipulate them into doing it. It is called grooming and that is what she was doing. It is considered rape.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
22 years is excessive for any crime, and basically amounts to torture (often, it also amounts to a death sentence).
I'll have no problem with 22 years if a teacher raped his students :mad:
And I have no problem with putting forcible rapists or genuine pedophiles to death. But jailing someone for 22 years is asinine.
Anyway, while I'm sympathetic to the idea that student-fucking, being a crime committed by an agent of the State entrusted with State business, should also involve the death penalty, I imagine it's probably more just to simply fire them and bar them from teaching, that is, if they've not committed statutory rape or used their position to coerce sex from their students. (Obviously, granting favors to student partners and subverting the State's goal of sorting children by merit and matching them to their best and highest function in the economy should probably be punished by death.)
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 09:41:44 AM
Based on the flood of these stories coming out in the internet age I see so pattern at all by attractiveness. HOTT and non-HOTT women get in trouble for this sort of thing.
But I'm guessing the news coverage increases with the HOTTness factor. Which gives you the impression that HOTT outweighs non-HOTT.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 09:53:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 09:41:44 AM
Based on the flood of these stories coming out in the internet age I see so pattern at all by attractiveness. HOTT and non-HOTT women get in trouble for this sort of thing.
But I'm guessing the news coverage increases with the HOTTness factor. Which gives you the impression that HOTT outweighs non-HOTT.
Not necessarily but maybe the news that catches people's attention on Languish :P
I like the assholes all 'where were these teachers when I was in school.' Um dude they were all over the place. We just did not have the internet to let us know about it and the media was much more discrete in general. The teacher who has sex with his/her students is a trope for reason. Also like many sex fantasies the reality is actually pretty terrible.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 09:40:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2015, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:50:18 AM
She looks pretty good for a 30 year old, and without make-up. Surprised that she can't find normal boyfriends.
And is 22 years a bit excessive? :unsure: I mean, her victims were willing participants, there was no use of force I presume.
My impression of such situations is that it is the very 'forbidden-ness' of the sex that these folks find exciting and attractive. So the availability of normal age-appropriate boyfriends would not have made a difference.
I understand Mono's confusion, though. My assumption is usually that the female teacher is unattractive and doe these things out of desperation. And a lot of times that is the case. It's just when she is actually attractive that it's news, I guess.
I think that assumption may or may not be justified. I would have thought, our society being what it is, it was a lot easier for all but the absolute ugliest of women to get sex from someone
legally if they are "desperate" enough to lower their standards - men may have a bit more of a problem in that respect.
I think it more likely that those excited by the notion of screwing kids would attempt to take jobs in which access to kids is easy - whether or not they are attractive - so as to put their plans into action. In short, it is not sexually frustrated teachers that is the cause, but those who are looking for exactly what they got.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 09:57:13 AM
I like the assholes all 'where were these teachers when I was in school.' Um dude they were all over the place. We just did not have the internet to let us know about it and the media was much more discrete in general. The teacher who has sex with his/her students is a trope for reason.
In my high school you could pick out the likely male teachers that seemed a bit pervy. But if there were any female teachers that had such temptations or tendencies, they hid it well.
QuoteAlso like many sex fantasies the reality is actually pretty terrible.
Generally agree. But I'm not sure I'd have been too damaged by it by the time I reached high school.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 10:06:00 AM
In my high school you could pick out the likely male teachers that seemed a bit pervy. But if there were any female teachers that had such temptations or tendencies, they hid it well.
Or maybe your Pedodar is broken? What sorts of behaviors would you expect a female pred to have? Because I worked with one and I never would have known in a million years until one of the kids approached me with how she was doing some really creepy shit to him.
Quote
Generally agree. But I'm not sure I'd have been too damaged by it by the time I reached high school.
Fortunately we will never know.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 10:06:00 AM
In my high school you could pick out the likely male teachers that seemed a bit pervy. But if there were any female teachers that had such temptations or tendencies, they hid it well.
We had a PE teacher in 6th grade who would often "accidentally" walk through the girl's locker room into the gym. And have a visible boner afterwards. When a student commented on his erection the teacher once slapped him. It was a bit of a scandal, but nothing came of it except an apology from the teacher to the student. He retired a few years ago (the teacher, not the student).
See Spicey if that was a female perv there would be no erection to be visible.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 10:06:00 AM
In my high school you could pick out the likely male teachers that seemed a bit pervy. But if there were any female teachers that had such temptations or tendencies, they hid it well.
Or maybe your Pedodar is broken? What sorts of behaviors would you expect a female pred to have? Because I worked with one and I never would have known in a million years until one of the kids approached me with how she was doing some really creepy shit to him.
I would say that my experiences based on those I knew do match with what D said. It was only two male teachers but one was actually fired (gay pass at student) and then the other wasn't but later married a former student of his within a year of her graduating. :rolleyes:
Not that you can easily spot a pedophile but I'd say that in school, there was general knowledge in the student body of the two males teachers I noted above.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
then the other wasn't but later married a former student of his within a year of her graduating.
Ah yes the long game. Well for her sake I hope he stopped being 'that guy' but I doubt it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:08:48 AM
Or maybe your Pedodar is broken? What sorts of behaviors would you expect a female pred to have?
Zero idea. Obviously they were more discreet than their male counterparts. The male perv teachers (whether they were actively predatory or just 'mere' pervs) made minimal effort to conceal their attraction to certain female students.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:12:45 AM
See Spicey if that was a female perv there would be no erection to be visible.
True, BUT we had a (semi-attractive FWIW) female English teacher in junior high who was all feminazi and didn't wear a bra. I swear every time someone mentioned Jon Bonjovi her damned nipples got hard.
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2015, 07:56:34 AM
The senator is an idiot, but as a politician he's excused. :P
I'm afraid in America a judge is also a politician as he gets elected. Judges being elected in a public vote is more baffling than anything that article said or quoted.
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 10:24:32 AM
I swear every time someone mentioned Jon Bonjovi her damned nipples got hard.
Well that is just adorable.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 10:25:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 07, 2015, 07:56:34 AM
The senator is an idiot, but as a politician he's excused. :P
I'm afraid in America a judge is also a politician as he gets elected. Judges being elected in a public vote is more baffling than anything that article said or quoted.
I have explained this to you many times since the inception of this board. Frontier traditions and mistrust of elites and populism blah blah.
Anyway, I'm surprised noone brought up a salient point that it would have been uber cool to have a "Predator" as a teacher. :cool:
(https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/902001-product-thumb.jpg)
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 10:27:28 AM
Anyway, I'm surprised noone brought up a salient point that it would have been uber cool to have a "Predator" as a teacher. :cool:
(https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/902001-product-thumb.jpg)
:rolleyes: Only in the first reply in the thread.
I didn't get the reference.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:20:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
then the other wasn't but later married a former student of his within a year of her graduating.
Ah yes the long game. Well for her sake I hope he stopped being 'that guy' but I doubt it.
Could've. It's not actually a disorder to be attracted to late teenagers.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:20:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
then the other wasn't but later married a former student of his within a year of her graduating.
Ah yes the long game. Well for her sake I hope he stopped being 'that guy' but I doubt it.
Could've. It's not actually a disorder to be attracted to late teenagers.
His pupils were all freshmen so...
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:25:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2015, 10:24:32 AM
I swear every time someone mentioned Jon Bonjovi her damned nipples got hard.
Well that is just adorable.
It was hilarious. If class got really boring someone would just work that into the conversation and boom, high beams were on.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
Could've. It's not actually a disorder to be attracted to late teenagers.
Pedophile necrophilia is wrong ide.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
Could've. It's not actually a disorder to be attracted to late teenagers.
Context Ide.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2015, 10:20:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2015, 10:14:41 AM
then the other wasn't but later married a former student of his within a year of her graduating.
Ah yes the long game. Well for her sake I hope he stopped being 'that guy' but I doubt it.
Could've. It's not actually a disorder to be attracted to late teenagers.
Ok, Grallon.
Gallon was a little weird and aggressive about it, but he didn't have a pathology, iirc. Well, at least not a sexual one.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 01:11:31 PM
Gallon was a little weird and aggressive about it, but he didn't have a pathology, iirc. Well, at least not a sexual one.
Yeah, he has a pathology about young boys.
I think pedophiles are so rare in real life that actually meeting one is like being struck by lightning. Possible in theory but will never happen in practice. I don't understand why people always turn on their radar to think if this person is gay, that person is a terrorist or if he is a pedophile. I never turn those radars on. It can be safely assumed that none of the people I ever meet in real life belong to these categories. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
I think pedophiles are so rare in real life that actually meeting one is like being struck by lightning. Possible in theory but will never happen in practice. I don't understand why people always turn on their radar to think if this person is gay, that person is a terrorist or if he is a pedophile. I never turn those radars on. It can be safely assumed that none of the people I ever meet in real life belong to these categories. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course.
Nah, they probably make up 1-4% of the population. Most however, never act on their impulses. I don't get out much, but I've known at least one man who got busted for child pornography, and when I was a kid another kid showed me child pornography he found on his dad's computer.
You can safely assume that no one you meet is gay? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2015, 09:29:23 PM
You can safely assume that no one you meet is gay? :huh:
Say, the percentage of gay/lesbians in the population is 0.01%, or something in that region. There are 7 million people in Hong Kong. Out of those 7 million, 700 are gays or lesbians. They probably have their own community or something, and tend to prefer their own. My chance of meeting them is so low that the odds are not material. My impression is that pedophiles should be at least 10 times or 100 times more rare. I think at least 99% of the population are normal, healthy, intelligent, mentally stable, rational, and solvent.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:40:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2015, 09:29:23 PM
You can safely assume that no one you meet is gay? :huh:
Say, the percentage of gay/lesbians in the population is 0.01%, or something in that region. There are 7 million people in Hong Kong. Out of those 7 million, 700 are gays or lesbians. They probably have their own community or something, and tend to prefer their own. My chance of meeting them is so low that the odds are not material.
Most studies seem to indicate that about 10% of people are gay, so you're only off by a factor of 1000 or so. I tend to think that 10% is a bit of a high estimate, but even if it's really only half that, you're still off by a factor of around 50. :lol:
QuoteMy impression is that pedophiles should be at least 10 times or 100 times more rare.
To be honest, I have no idea what percentage of people are pedophiles.
QuoteI think at least 99% of the population are normal, healthy, intelligent, mentally stable, rational, and solvent.
I think about at least a quarter of people are actually pretty stupid, so even leaving the other criteria you list besides "intelligent" out of it, you're way off.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2015, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
I think pedophiles are so rare in real life that actually meeting one is like being struck by lightning. Possible in theory but will never happen in practice. I don't understand why people always turn on their radar to think if this person is gay, that person is a terrorist or if he is a pedophile. I never turn those radars on. It can be safely assumed that none of the people I ever meet in real life belong to these categories. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course.
Nah, they probably make up 1-4% of the population. Most however, never act on their impulses. I don't get out much, but I've known at least one man who got busted for child pornography, and when I was a kid another kid showed me child pornography he found on his dad's computer.
The test that I impose on myself is beyond reasonable doubt. I need to prove to myself beyond reasonable doubt that a person is gay or is a pedophile before I'll believe it. Someone may have accidentally downloaded one child pornography picture. So one picture is not sufficient proof that someone is a pedophile.
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2015, 09:50:19 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:40:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2015, 09:29:23 PM
You can safely assume that no one you meet is gay? :huh:
Say, the percentage of gay/lesbians in the population is 0.01%, or something in that region. There are 7 million people in Hong Kong. Out of those 7 million, 700 are gays or lesbians. They probably have their own community or something, and tend to prefer their own. My chance of meeting them is so low that the odds are not material.
Most studies seem to indicate that about 10% of people are gay, so you're only off by a factor of 1000 or so. I tend to think that 10% is a bit of a high estimate, but even if it's really only half that, you're still off by a factor of around 50. :lol:
QuoteMy impression is that pedophiles should be at least 10 times or 100 times more rare.
Not quite that much, and it doesn't take into consideration people who are bi or were just experimenting in college or whatever. A woman can admit to the later and no one cares, but if a man did that his straight cred would be shot forever.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/05/economist-explains-3
QuoteThis has led many to suggest that the figures may be much higher. Stonewall, a British gay-rights charity, estimates that between 5-7% of the British population is gay, lesbian or bisexual: an estimate derived from a 2005 figure from the Department of Trade and Industry. Other surveys suggest the proportion of those who have had same-sex experiences is far higher than the proportion of people who will happily define themselves as gay or bisexual. A survey from the Williams Institute in 2011 suggested that 8% of Americans had "engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour", while in Britain, a survey in 2013 showed that 7% of men and 16% of women aged between 16 and 44 years old had had some kind of homosexual experienc
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2015, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
I think pedophiles are so rare in real life that actually meeting one is like being struck by lightning. Possible in theory but will never happen in practice. I don't understand why people always turn on their radar to think if this person is gay, that person is a terrorist or if he is a pedophile. I never turn those radars on. It can be safely assumed that none of the people I ever meet in real life belong to these categories. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course.
Nah, they probably make up 1-4% of the population. Most however, never act on their impulses. I don't get out much, but I've known at least one man who got busted for child pornography, and when I was a kid another kid showed me child pornography he found on his dad's computer.
The test that I impose on myself is beyond reasonable doubt. I need to prove to myself beyond reasonable doubt that a person is gay or is a pedophile before I'll believe it. Someone may have accidentally downloaded one child pornography picture. So one picture is not sufficient proof that someone is a pedophile.
Well the guy who got busted for it did, got busted again. So there was a pattern there. Your estimates on homosexuals is way off, as Dps pointed out. I don't think it's as high 10% but 1-5% seems reasonable. It it was as low as you proposed, then I had the remarkable luck to meet every gay person in my home town of 40,000 people! I imagine that people attracted to children are similar in number.
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
It's because the have to hide it from their homophobic society
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2015, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
It's because the have to hide it from their homophobic society
It's not necessarily a matter of them hiding their sexuality, though. If Mono takes a bus to work each day, the bus driver he sees every day might be gay, but Mono would have no way to know that, because the relationship between the 2 of them isn't social, it's purely utilitarian--one of them of them drives a bus, and the other is a passenger on it (and no metaphor is intended, nor should be drawn here). Mono will assume that the driver is straight, because there's no reason for him to assume otherwise, but really the driver's sexuality is a topic Mono is completely uninterested in. In fact, even if the driver were an attractive female, Mono might admire her figure, but his consideration of her sexuality presumably wouldn't go beyond the theoretical (he is married, and presumably faithful to his wife--given his persona, I'd say that's a safe assumption, because getting some on the side might get pricey, and if he were willing to pay out, he'd probably just seek out a prostitute, 'cause let's face it, in the long run, hookers cheaper than girlfriends). And of course it works the other way, too. The driver will also simply see Mono as a passenger, and not think about him sexually, and will assume him to be straight as the default, not out of homophobia, but simply because the odds say that 90% of the passengers are straight (odds are different for trolley drivers in San Francisco).
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
Haven't you met Sheilbh or garbon?
Wow, I didn't think I can think less of Mono, yet he manages to surprise me yet again.
He seems like he was deliberately placed in my path by some cosmic force so I can project all the evil of the world on him. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:52:24 PM
Wow, I didn't think I can think less of Mono, yet he manages to surprise me yet again.
Of course you can. You can mistake him for me :)
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
Haven't you met Sheilbh or garbon?
I showed up after he had left.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:52:24 PM
Wow, I didn't think I can think less of Mono, yet he manages to surprise me yet again.
I must agree. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:50:26 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier.
Haven't you met Sheilbh or garbon?
No.
Gays use the hanky code, so they're easy to identify.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:52:24 PM
Wow, I didn't think I can think less of Mono, yet he manages to surprise me yet again.
He seems like he was deliberately placed in my path by some cosmic force so I can project all the evil of the world on him. :lol:
Maybe I am missing something. Sure Mono is wrong on the number of gays out there, but unless he used some offensive words that I am not aware of isn't he just saying that he doesn't think about or consider someone's sexuality unless they themselves push it out there in front of him? Isn't that what any discriminated against group wants?
Quote from: sbr on July 08, 2015, 07:04:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2015, 11:52:24 PM
Wow, I didn't think I can think less of Mono, yet he manages to surprise me yet again.
He seems like he was deliberately placed in my path by some cosmic force so I can project all the evil of the world on him. :lol:
Maybe I am missing something. Sure Mono is wrong on the number of gays out there, but unless he used some offensive words that I am not aware of isn't he just saying that he doesn't think about or consider someone's sexuality unless they themselves push it out there in front of him? Isn't that what any discriminated against group wants?
I don't want anything that involves statements like:
"I need to prove to myself beyond reasonable doubt that a person is gay or is a pedophile before I'll believe it. Someone may have accidentally downloaded one child pornography picture. So one picture is not sufficient proof that someone is a pedophile."
"I don't recall meeting a single gay in my life. I have not encountered even a hint of gayness. Every single person is normal. Languish must be an outlier."
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals pedophilia. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 07, 2015, 09:40:31 PM
I think at least 99% of the population are normal, healthy, intelligent, mentally stable, rational, and solvent.
I think it is more like 80% Mono.
QuoteI've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Wait you've had sex with people?
This thread got interesting.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2015, 08:41:39 AM
This thread got interesting.
What all the sexual predating wasn't interesting enough for you?
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
I suspect them saying 'I am a homosexual' or mentioning their same sex partner or something. He is saying he does not just notice somebody is acting gay and assume they are gay. I generally make so assumptions about anybody's sexuality one way or the other. Unless it is a woman I want to have sex with how is it any of my business?
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
I was annoyed and my words flew out to fast. I meant to say that you brought up gayness when talking about rarity of
pedophilia.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 08:42:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2015, 08:41:39 AM
This thread got interesting.
What all the sexual predating wasn't interesting enough for you?
Nah, we've had several threads on that.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 08:48:18 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
I suspect them saying 'I am a homosexual' or mentioning their same sex partner or something. He is saying he does not just notice somebody is acting gay and assume they are gay. I generally make so assumptions about anybody's sexuality one way or the other. Unless it is a woman I want to have sex with how is it any of my business?
Actually he said that he hasn't met any gay people and then sort of suggested we just congregate in little ghettos / only on Languish can we be observed in the wild. <_<
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Straight people = women?
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Straight people = women?
Anecdotal evidence isn't admissible anymore on Languish?
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
I was annoyed and my words flew out to fast. I meant to say that you brought up gayness when talking about rarity of pedophilia.
They are both rare. At least in my mind. I also talked about intelligence and health and lot of other things. As I said I have nothing against gays.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Those aren't "reasonable doubts". If you say you are gay, I'll believe you. If somebody says this person acts like a gay person because of the way he dresses or something, I'll dismiss it. I will never consider anybody gay unless there is evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Straight people = women?
Women = barrels of sin
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
I was annoyed and my words flew out to fast. I meant to say that you brought up gayness when talking about rarity of pedophilia.
They are both rare. At least in my mind. I also talked about intelligence and health and lot of other things. As I said I have nothing against gays.
You never mention gayness and pedophilia in the same sentence. Or same paragraph. Or the same day.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2015, 09:01:24 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
I was annoyed and my words flew out to fast. I meant to say that you brought up gayness when talking about rarity of pedophilia.
They are both rare. At least in my mind. I also talked about intelligence and health and lot of other things. As I said I have nothing against gays.
You never mention gayness and pedophilia in the same sentence. Or same paragraph. Or the same day.
Thank you. :)
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Those aren't "reasonable doubts". If you say you are gay, I'll believe you. If somebody says this person acts like a gay person because of the way he dresses or something, I'll dismiss it. I will never consider anybody gay unless there is evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
So if I say that I'm The Queen of The Night, then you'll believe me?
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2015, 09:00:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Straight people = women?
Women = barrels of sin
Gotcha, good to know.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Those aren't "reasonable doubts". If you say you are gay, I'll believe you. If somebody says this person acts like a gay person because of the way he dresses or something, I'll dismiss it. I will never consider anybody gay unless there is evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
So if I say that I'm The Queen of The Night, then you'll believe me?
No. I don't know what that means, but I presume that is some fantasy term. But gays, no matter how rare they are, exist.
So Romney has binders full of barrels of sin? Makes sense now.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 09:20:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Those aren't "reasonable doubts". If you say you are gay, I'll believe you. If somebody says this person acts like a gay person because of the way he dresses or something, I'll dismiss it. I will never consider anybody gay unless there is evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
So if I say that I'm The Queen of The Night, then you'll believe me?
No. I don't know what that means, but I presume that is some fantasy term. But gays, no matter how rare they are, exist.
Okay, what if I said that I was a queen of the night?
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
Oh well, I have no idea if there is any difference between gayness or homosexuality. I use these terms interchangably, and I think they mean the same thing.
I was annoyed and my words flew out to fast. I meant to say that you brought up gayness when talking about rarity of pedophilia.
That really screwed the rest of the debate.
What were we debating?
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 07:09:11 AM
To clarify, he's the one that suddenly brought gayness into the picture when he was talking about rarity of homosexuals. Then that bizarre bit about needing reasonable doubt and then the Neilesque clincher of noting that gays are not normal people.
:huh: Gays are not normal people.
I've had sex with straight people, and I've had sex with gay people. Gay people are nothing like straight people. Straight people have boobs and a vagina.
Straight people = women?
Anecdotal evidence isn't admissible anymore on Languish?
:D
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:23:36 AM
What were we debating?
That Mono is a bad person.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:21:37 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 09:20:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 08, 2015, 08:43:55 AM
I wonder what Mono's "beyond reasonable doubt" proof of homosexuality would entail. :hmm:
He declares that he is gay?
What if they said it by accident or as a joke?
Those aren't "reasonable doubts". If you say you are gay, I'll believe you. If somebody says this person acts like a gay person because of the way he dresses or something, I'll dismiss it. I will never consider anybody gay unless there is evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
So if I say that I'm The Queen of The Night, then you'll believe me?
No. I don't know what that means, but I presume that is some fantasy term. But gays, no matter how rare they are, exist.
Okay, what if I said that I was a queen of the night?
You've lost me.
Quote from: Martinus on July 08, 2015, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:23:36 AM
What were we debating?
That Mono is a bad person.
Then the debate can close. I agree that I am a bad person :menace:
Quote from: Martinus on July 08, 2015, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:23:36 AM
What were we debating?
That Mono is a bad person.
Mono is not a bad person. He's just ignorant and short sighted. It's kinda cute that he thinks because owns a few penny stocks he's entitled to ride on the investor yacht.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:21:37 AM
Okay, what if I said that I was a queen of the night?
Elvira!? :w00t: :perv:
I can see why you would be a fan :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 07, 2015, 01:11:31 PM
Grallon was a little weird and aggressive about it, but he didn't have a pathology, iirc. Well, at least not a sexual one.
Care to elaborate? :yeahright:
G.
You're nihilistic and stuff.
Also a conspiracy nut and a fucking Nazi.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2015, 01:35:15 PM
Also a conspiracy nut and a fucking Nazi.
I think you mean sexless Nazi.
Tsk tsk - celibate - not sexless.
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2015, 12:14:08 PM
It's kinda cute that he thinks because owns a few penny stocks he's entitled to ride on the investor yacht.
Preach on :yes:
Quote from: Grallon on July 08, 2015, 01:56:43 PM
Tsk tsk - celibate - not sexless.
G.
Meh. Eventually what is a choice becomes one's only option.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 05:44:40 PM
Meh. Eventually what is a choice becomes one's only option.
You're finally catching on to your fate. ^_^
G.