California Passes Pro Pedophile Bill.

One notes that every time self-righteous leftists SHRIEK that they would never, EVER do something as a party they ultimately end up doing that very thing as a party. Conservatives warned that this was on the Left's political agenda and leftists SHRIEKED that it wasn't true. Now it has come to pass as the thin edge of the wedge designed to make greater and ever greater inroads into gradually legitimizing pedophilia.

 

Ten years is too much, but some reform is needed. A wiser move would be for California to lower its age of consent from 18 to 16, like most other states. Expecting teenagers to remain virgins until they're 18 is blind to reality.

Have you given this a moment's thought? A 20 year old man who has sex with a 10 year old won't last long in prison. A 20 year old man who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend will do fine in the joint. Neither one of these men gives a damn about a registry.

So now you're talking rape? The OP is very disjointed. People convicted of rape will remain on the registry. Though I'd like to know how the state arrived at a 10 year requirement, the intent of the law has nothing to do with rape. It's geared toward consensual sex.

 

So there's more to it than "10 years older"?

 

Blatantly false. The law concerns the sex offender registry. It does not legalize sex with minors.

 

Indeed. I struggle to understand the depth, regularity and ease at which disinformation is peddled from the Trump side. I don't now whether it is deliberate or simply the reactions of people who have been trained to live in an alternate reality.

 

That's some imagination you have there. I think. You really didn't say much in all those words.

Like I said earlier, 10 years is too much, but the law gives judges the discretion. If an 18 year old woman has sex with a 28 year old man, it may raise a few eyebrows, but I doubt anyone would claim anything immoral about such a relationship. There's little difference between that and a 17 and 27 year old.

A judge can determine whether such relationships were sincere or coerced or otherwise harmful to the minor. The hysteria from Trumpists is fascinating.

 

Did you?

 

You can't go back and read? Imagine that. Let me help. Read post 21. Quit working so hard at being wrong. It's making you look bad.

 

If that is the way the current law is structured, it seems the law then requires it. It isn't a question of "should" at that point.

 

The thin edge of the wedge actually DOING what leftists HOWLED would never happen on their watch. The denial from leftists is fascinating to watch. But one wonders just whom thay think they are fooling.

 

Another one that didn't read the whole thread. Read post 21. I already addressed that.

 

This is pro-pedo. It really can't be interpreted any other way.

 

My obvious question is what is magic about the age of 23? The law, as written doesn't make 23 a standard, in fact it is less specific. Think about this, what if a 16yo has sex with a 7 yo. Under the new law, the 16yo wouldn't be registered. Is that what CA really wants to happen?

 

More poetry. You should write rap songs.

 

You do understand they can’t just come out all at once and decriminalize pedophilia right? They do it insidiously. One step at a time. And this is a step VERY CLEARLY towards that end goal.

 

Yeah, it's California. I can see where they are going but I think they are a little extreme with the ages and the spread but that's Kalfornication for ya.

 

The law gives judges discretion. No judge will relieve such a felon of being put on the registry.

 

How do we know this?

 

Agreed. The 10 year requirement seems arbitrary. Five years may be too little. Seven or eight would be reasonable, IMO. Targeting the age requirement to different age groups would be the best method. Then again, we're just talking about a registry.

In my state, indecent exposure will land you on the registry, which I doubt anyone would disagree with. However, public urination is prosecuted as indecent exposure, and gets you on the registry. A friend of mine got arrested for this, and had the badge of "sex offender" follow him everywhere. He was guilty of drinking too much beer, having an exploding bladder, and not picking a hiding spot where a cop riding by couldn't see him. This was many decades ago, and I hope my state has come to its senses on these matters, but my point is that these registries are not always purposeful or beneficial to anyone.

 

How do we know what? How judges will react? I'm sure they'll react no differently than they do now. Your 16 and 7 year analogy isn't valid because they are both minors. 18 and 9 would be a valid comparison. I can't imagine any judge not severely punishing any 18 year old for such a crime. Likewise, no judge will relieve this person from the registry.

I think we're getting lost in numbers. We should first examine human nature before possible extreme situations. All cases are unique. Though May-December romances are seen as novel, they do occur, they do succeed, and the man is not always the December part of the relationship. The law recognizes that a 17 year old can have a legitimate relationship with a 27 year old, which is reasonable considering 18 year olds can legally have a relationship with anyone.

 

Slippery slope argument. Weak.

 

You do understand that slippery slope is not always a fallacy right?

Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur.

 

For instance. When you folks screamed for homosexual equality, we told you that the pedophiles would adopt the same positions as the homosexuals and advocate for an insidious path towards the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. You all screamed “slippery slope! Slippery slope”

Well look what’s happening

 

For instance when we told you if you accepted the destruction of confederate memorials that they would soon come after American ones. You all screamed “slippery slope”.

Now look what’s happening.

 

What's with the "we?" I'm talking to you, and I'm a singular "you."

Yeah, what if I told you water rolls down the side of mountains. Slippery or not, that's one hell of a slope.

I'm waiting to wake up one day, find my gun missing, a truckload of dead babies in my driveway, the government taken over by communists, and Obama's Kenyan birth certificate in my mailbox. I'll add legal pedophilia to that list. I'm gonna have to live way past 100. I'm still waiting, though.