• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Official Political Discussion Thread 4

nightshade

Your grandfather is a cat
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
10,025
Location
England
Black Thorn
if they don't vote then do they have any right to complain on the outcome?
I don't have the time or energy, or really the interest to look at each candidate properly, and I will not vote for someone just because someone else says I should. So yes, I live with the choices others have made and I feel I shouldn't complain about it. Actually I rarely think about politics at all, I know there's plenty of other people in the world that can complain on my behalf if I cared enough to look it up.

However I dislike the people that say to me, women fought for the vote so you should use it, if I was male would they be more accepting of my decision to not vote?
 
burrunjor
burrunjor
Agreed that is a double standard, though I still say that Biden's victory would be the biggest disaster for left wing politics of the past 10 years alongside Corbyn's defeat in the UK.

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
8,590
Age
30
But the key term here is ”consensual”, no? While not advisable, it does happen that say a 19 year old dates a 15 year old and they consensually engage in what is legally termed ”statutory rape”. While one could argue that the 19 year old should know better, it is wise - in my opinion - to leave some leeway for the judges discretion whether or not he/she ought to be labeled a sex offender. I imagine, if it was a repeat offender, the judge would acknowledge that it was predatory behavior. But consensual statutory rape does not necessarily indicate a predator. Though, again, certainly inadvisable.

The law doesn’t appear to OK statutory rape, but rather give the judge opportunnuance the conviction to fit the crime. Which will be subject to the specifics of each situation.

A 19 year old sleeping with their significant other, consensually, shouldn’t necessarily be classified for life as a sex criminal or paedophile. Thinking that they should is very rigid and leaves no space for the grey areas that make up the mess of reality.

But then, I say that as someone who had a 21 year old boyfriend at 14, and though in hindsight I can feel like he was very immature to date someone so young, I also wouldn’t want him penalized forever for it. It was more complex than just looking at our ages implies.

There's a massive difference though between a 19 year old dating a 15 year old and a 23 year old dating a 14 year old. which is why I said the age band difference should be lowered, maybe to 4 years or less age difference.

The problem with basing it on consent and not age is that victims of abuse often "consent" because they have been groomed to do so.

It seems California has some problematic laws: This one, the straight version, and the one where a person doesn't have to legally disclose to their sexual partner if they have HIV.
 

Taake

Keeper of the Continuum Transfunctioner
Watcher
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
17,053
Age
34
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
There's a massive difference though between a 19 year old dating a 15 year old and a 23 year old dating a 14 year old. which is why I said the age band difference should be lowered, maybe to 4 years or less age difference.

The problem with basing it on consent and not age is that victims of abuse often "consent" because they have been groomed to do so.

It seems California has some problematic laws: This one, the straight version, and the one where a person doesn't have to legally disclose to their sexual partner if they have HIV.
Which is also why I mentioned my history 21-14.

I just don’t see point in getting fired up about this law becoming equal between straight and homosexual pairings and assuming it will be problematic, when it appears to be a law that takes a case-by-case stand in order to dole out appropriate punishment. It is not NO punishment. It is punishment taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances.

everything isn’t black and white.
 

Anyanka Bunny Slayer

You gotta go be gay for that poor, dead intern...
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
8,291
Location
The 9th Circle of Hell
Black Thorn
The problem with basing it on consent and not age is that victims of abuse often "consent" because they have been groomed to do so.
While its good that people are more aware of abuse these days, I do not think that every older guy who dates a teenager is a sex offender. I had just turned 17 when I met my 32 year old boyfriend...there was no "grooming" or anything like that involved. My parents even met him, (for an interrogation lol) and they were okay with the relationship. Of course, even if they hadn't been, I still would've gone out with him. 😂

I'm just not a fan of the "victim" culture. Not everyone is a victim, per se. And every situation is different. *shrugs*
 

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
8,590
Age
30
Which is also why I mentioned my history 21-14.
I didn't want to comment on your history because that's personal to you (and I found myself very briefly in a similar sort of situation at 15 though it didn't go far), but as an adult looking back, it is inappropriate for a man in in 20s to be sniffing about a 14/15 year old. That's not saying that the blokes in our history were being predatory towards us, I didn't feel preyed upon and I'm guessing you didn't feel preyed upon, but it is inappropriate no matter which way you try and frame it.

Teenagers think they're so wise and know everything but, in reality, they know jack shit. It's only when they're older and have more experience that they realise how little they knew as a teenager because it is usually their first experience away from the safety net of their family and they're not really world savvy at that age).

I just don’t see point in getting fired up about this law becoming equal between straight and homosexual pairings and assuming it will be problematic, when it appears to be a law that takes a case-by-case stand in order to dole out appropriate punishment. It is not NO punishment. It is punishment taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances.

everything isn’t black and white.
I'm not getting fired up. The issue isn't the making it equal for gay and straight pairings, it's the fact it's involving 14 year olds. If it were 16 year olds (who are still counted as minors in California) then fair enough because they are approaching the legal age of consent and in some states it is 16 so you can see why they would take it case by case. However 14 is way too young. That is Season 5 Dawn and and Season 7 Xander.

My opinion is probably influenced by my job so I am looking at it almost in a professional capacity but 14 year olds are 2 years below the age of consent here, 4 years below the age of consent in California, a lot of learning happens in that 2-4 years. I guess I'm just seeing the risk that comes with that type of law regardless of whether or not the people involved are gay or straight.

It is inappropriate for a 14 year old to be in a sexual relationship with someone in their 20s. That's all I can say really.

While its good that people are more aware of abuse these days, I do not think that every older guy who dates a teenager is a sex offender. I had just turned 17 when I met my 32 year old boyfriend...there was no "grooming" or anything like that involved. My parents even met him, (for an interrogation lol) and they were okay with the relationship. Of course, even if they hadn't been, I still would've gone out with him. 😂
See 17 is different. It is over the age of consent here, it's more or less at the age of consent in California plus you're almost a legal adult, but also you have 3 more years worth of world experience than you did at 14. Would your parents have been happy for their 14 year old to be dating a 29 year old?

Age gaps aren't bad in relationships, however it's all dependent on when that age gap take place. Even though there is the same age gap between an 18 year old and a 27 year old as there is between a 14 year old and a 23 year old, they are not the same thing. One is a relationship between two consenting adults, the other is an inappropriate relationship between an adult and a minor.

I'm just not a fan of the "victim" culture. Not everyone is a victim, per se. And every situation is different. *shrugs*
I agree there are different situations and it's not always the guy's fault eg the teenager pretends they're older than they actually are. However for an adult man to knowingly engage in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, that's highly inappropriate at best. I would think most adult men would steer clear of anyone below the age of 17 so for one to willingly engage in a relationship with a 14 year old, that is a bit questionable at least.

I guess this new law would help men who have been duped eg those who were led to believe their younger partner was older than they actually are, however I can also see how this law can be used and twisted by predators for their own gain.

I do agree with you about victim culture. Genuine victims never wanted to be victims or claim victimhood, it was something that was forced on them. Non-victims are eager to claim victimhood as they believe it gives them sympathy points which they can then use for their own gain eg Jussie Smollett, Amber Heard and Bubba Wallace. All lied about being victims because they believed it would help their careers if they could play the victim card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Anyanka Bunny Slayer

You gotta go be gay for that poor, dead intern...
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
8,291
Location
The 9th Circle of Hell
Black Thorn
See 17 is different. It is over the age of consent here, it's more or less at the age of consent in California plus you're almost a legal adult, but also you have 3 more years worth of world experience than you did at 14. Would your parents have been happy for their 14 year old to be dating a 29 year old?
So basically, it's a question of legality? If the laws were changed and 14 was the age of consent, would you feel the same way?

Oh, and 20£ says that you cannot help yourself from mentioning 'BLM' for twenty-four hours.

Ready, set, go!

:p
 
Last edited:

Spanky

Scooby
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
22,218
Black Thorn
It is inappropriate for a 14 year old to be in a sexual relationship with someone in their 20s.
That's why it's a crime. This law did not legalize it. It's still against the law.
 

Spanky

Scooby
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
22,218
Black Thorn
I shouldn't find humor in this, but oh well...

So Portland has been under attack by rioters for 100 days. They typically throw molotov cocktails at cars, buildings and police. Last night one such rioter decided to up the ante and throw a molotov cocktail at... himself!

He dropped it, it exploded, causing his feet and legs to catch afire. There is a video of him high-stepping like Deion Sanders

with his legs afire. It made me chuckle.
 

Spanky

Scooby
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
22,218
Black Thorn
The new RNC campaign ad.
and the Trump ad
That's pretty striking when your campaign ad is just news clips.
 
Last edited:
ILLYRIAN
ILLYRIAN
I watched the second video, what was the message it was attempting to make, as it failed with me.

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
8,590
Age
30
So basically, it's a question of legality? If the laws were changed and 14 was the age of consent, would you feel the same way?
I would be extremely concerned if they lowered the age of consent to 14. With any age restricted activity, there's always a buffer zone, that is where someone is younger than they should be but are almost at the correct age (eg only a few months younger) so they engage in the activity without it raising too many eyebrows. However if you lower the age you lower the buffer zone so if the age of consent was 14, 13 year olds then become involved and that is not the kind of direction you want things to be heading in.

Oh, and 20£ says that you cannot help yourself from mentioning 'BLM' for twenty-four hours.

Ready, set, go!

:p
I accept your bet. However, because no money will ever change hands I propose a new collateral. So the 24 hours have started from the time of your post. When I win, you have to change the part on your profile that says "Bad Wolf" to "Surfer Bucky" for a whole week.



That's pretty striking when your campaign ad is just news clips.
It's hard to argue with the truth. Those are very good campaign ads and I hope Trump wins the election and remains president.
 
Last edited:
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
We have a deal.

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
8,590
Age
30
I'm surprised it was a blatant attack against BLM. What do you think?
I think it's necessary to expose the rioting that is going on to the masses. Don't forget the mainstream media, particularly CNN, are still trying to pretend that these are "mostly peaceful protests". I notice both ads use the crying black woman, and again it's necessary because people, regardless of skin colour, are being hurt by these riots and they are ruining lives.

The second ad is clever because it is not a dramatization, it is actual news footage/camera footage showing the reality of the riots which means that people can't pretend that Trump and the republicans are making it all up.
 

Taake

Keeper of the Continuum Transfunctioner
Watcher
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
17,053
Age
34
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
The second ad is clever because it is not a dramatization, it is actual news footage/camera footage showing the reality of the riots which means that people can't pretend that Trump and the republicans are making it all up.
But they can claim/say they ”angled” it under false pretenses. Or maybe that is the cynic in me talking.
 

The Bronze

Rogue Demon Hunter
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
3,179
Age
34
Location
Essex
Black Thorn
Trump is fairly honest for a politician
I know the bar is literally on the floor as you're UK based and living with a corrupt government but dishonesty is the cornerstone of Trump as a person. I think one study found 20,000 lies or misleading statements made by him since becoming President.
Don't forget the mainstream media, particularly CNN, are still trying to pretend that these are "mostly peaceful protests".
Which is accurate, study here:

 

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
8,590
Age
30
I know the bar is literally on the floor as you're UK based and living with a corrupt government but dishonesty is the cornerstone of Trump as a person. I think one study found 20,000 lies or misleading statements made by him since becoming President.

Which is accurate, study here:

What about the data for the democrats?
What about the data for how many black people are killed by cops and how many black people are killed by other black people then comparing the two and asking which is the bigger threat to the black community. Spoiler: It's not the cops.

Even if the cops killed 100 black people a year (and the true number is considerably lower), it would still take them a decade to kill half the black people that get killed in one year by other black people.

Better Boris by miles than Corbyn. I dread to think what state the country would've been in if Corbyn had won. Both Johnson and Starmer have shown a united front against BLM, Boris has said the people shouldn't be forced to kneel if they don't want to (though credit should go to Raab for being the first politician to publicly say that he wasn't going to kneel to BLM- he only kneels to two people: The Queen and his wife when he proposed to her), and Starmer has said that defunding the police won't happen because "the country won't stand for it".

I'd hardly describe Portland as peaceful nor the other riots in democrat run states unless you want to say that rioters are "peacefully" committing arson and looting and "peacefully" attempting to murder various individuals for the slightest provocation eg the rioters started hunting Kyle Rittenhouse because he extinguished a dumpster which had been set on fire by the rioters so they began chasing him down and attacked him.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom