Pizzagate because you shouldn't have sex with your students
Says who, since when and how so? Perhaps it depends on who is 'you' and who are the 'students'? Remember, Pizzagare is about some specific, abhorrent crime committed agains children. It concerns specific events, recurrent themes, MO and clearly identified actors.
Vulnerable and fragile as they might be, 17 and 18 year old boys are not children by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to discuss the ethical implications of students/teachers sexual relationship bring this nonsense elsewhere. Don't dilute the research! @Millennial_Falcon, @Vindicator how much further OT could one go? Mods, please delete.
Judge Glenn Thompson dismissed charges against 44-year-old former high school teacher Carrie Witt and 27-year-old former aide David Solomon, who worked at different schools. Witt was accused of sleeping with an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, and Solomon faced charges of having sex with a 17-year-old, according to local news reports.
Not sure what's going on here. The normalization and changing of laws has always been part of pizzagate. Teachers having sex with students never had to be defended before, but now it's no longer taboo because of a law ensuring "slaves" obtained the same rights as everyone else?
If you really believe a 44-year-old teacher having sex with a 17-year-old student is okay, guess what? You may already be normalized. Nothing anyone can do about that, BUT the point is that a precedent has been set. A judge knocked down the criminal penalty for a teacher having sex with a student. So today, it was a 17-yr-old. Maybe next week, it'll be a 16-year-old. How about a 15-yr-old? Remember that Bill Maher said that the only thing wrong with Mary Kay La Tourneau having sex with a student was that there weren't videos of it.
This is tantamount to the push for children to be autonomous in deciding their sexuality at four. Because if they can legally push for a child to decide his sexuality, they can then push for them to decide whether or not they can have sex.
I'm surprised @Millenial_Falcon and/or @Vindicator took it down. Could it be reposted under proof of "normalization" and allowing it to become mainstream for teachers and children to have sexual relationships? That seems a huge story and pizzagate related, no?
"Children" is not a legal term. The minimum age of consent in most states is 16. Any consensual sexual relationship with a person 16 and above is therefore legal. "Normal" means different things to different people. So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story. Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly. We live in a society where perversion, vice and depravity have become already the "norm". Start by outlawing pervasive pornography, militant f@gotry, hysterical feminism, sodomy, gay marriage, conveyor-belt abortions of convenience, satanism, sexualisation of kids and mixed restrooms. Then we'll see who a hormone ridden 18-year old teenager can and can't have sex with.
EDIT: Oh. And Pizzagate btw is about something entirely different. It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
This. This is what I mean. Why would @Vindicator or @Millenial_Falcon pay attention to anything you have to say and delete a post when you are completely wrong about everything and see things through a very jaded, very narrow perspective?
"Children" is not a legal term.
"MINOR" is a legal term, definition, and class of human being. While the laws of consent vary, the current law for MINOR is (from Wikipedia):
In the United States as of 1995, minor is generally legally defined as a person under the age of 18. Although in the context of alcohol or gambling laws, people under the age of 21 may also sometimes be referred to as "minors".
From the Free Legal Dictionary:
An infant or person who is under the age of legal competence. A term derived from the Civil Law, which described a person under a certain age as less than so many years. In most states, a person is no longer a minor after reaching the age of 18 (though state laws might still prohibit certain acts until reaching a greater age; e.g., purchase of liquor). Also, less; of less consideration; lower; a person of inferior condition.
This resolves the need for me to follow this suggestion:
So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story.
This is clearly a misunderstanding and corruption of the current statutes. The age of consent varies from state-to-state, but even where age is say 17, there may still be prosecution when a grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants. This means that in two seventeen-year-olds usually can, and do, engage in sexual relations, but that if one of the seventeen-year-olds were blackmailing or bullying the other party into performing sexual acts, that it is not consensual as undue pressure and coercion has been applied.
In the case of an adult (also a legal term) engaging in sex with a minor (yes, it is a legal term so maybe you can petition whoever the hell you want to ... maybe Pedosta?), the relationship may become suspect in thinking external factors were applied to said minor in enticing that "child" to engage in a sexual act. A teacher/student would fit the model of one such relationship where coercion could be applied. An employer/employee could be another. After all, the targeted victim shows up for work every day and is ripe for being taken advantage of. A coach/athlete would be another situation.
Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly.
Another complete misinterpretation and marginalization/normalization of what went on here. It's not an "ethical" issue, it was a criminal one. From the article:
A teacher having sex with a student is a Class B felony under current state law, carrying a sentence of up to 20 years and fines of up to $30,000.
It was a felony! A F-E-L-O-N-Y, not an ethical issue or whether you should or should not allow a person nobody likes that much into the soiree you're holding at the local eatery. So now that barrier is gone. It was there to protect students from lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students. The teachers are there to teach and the students should be there to learn. The classroom is not a singles bar and teachers should not be scouting for the victim. Which means it's this:
It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
If we take away that barrier, and it was taken away, it means the destruction of childhood through the uninhibited predation of horny, overage, rapist/molestors who hide the element of grooming and coercion under the argument that the relationship is "consensual" when it is anything but. Parents are not sending their sons and daughters to school to be raped by teachers. And the fact that the judge used the case of this "seventeen-year-old" to open the floodgate is exactly what was needed to get people like you chiming in and defending this.
This is about precedent. This is about the abolishment of a law protecting childhood and innocence, something that is within the realm and boundaries of pizzagate.
Self-righteous, bigoted members of the pizzagate community have the right to espouse their ridiculous, rigid opinions, but for a post central to a lot of the issues pizzagate is dealing to be taken down because of one such member flagging moderators is outrageous.
This community is about sharing information, not controlling and defining what someone should or should not post because it conflicts or is a variable on the central theme. This post was and is very pertinent to the subject we're dealing with and I'm sorry you're so entrenched in projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused.
I like your fervor and your research work on voat in general. But as many on this sub, you seem to have a hard time keeping an objective perspective.
I know how that feels. Suddenly everything around you looks connected by million invisible threads to Pizzagate. It's called availability heuristic and confirmation bias.
It's a problem for research and clear thinking, since it takes away focus, inserts randomness and results invariably in credibility loss.
All that Alabama judge said was that a law criminalizing consensual teacher-student sex is unconstitutional. The US Constitution being the ultimate measure of what's legal or not.
You know virtually nothing about the case, except from what you've read in some internet article. But you are quick to assume that the teachers involved could be only
lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students
There could be no presumption that the sexual relationship between two consenting adults implies necessarily
grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants
in the same way not all sex is presumed rape. Except of course, by deranged American feminists.
17 and 18 year old can also be lecherous, sneaky and manipulative and as capable of "power" abuse as their teachers.
How do you know that it was not the male student who seduced a lonely, aging, depressive female teacher who badly needed a man's attention and love?
How do you know that there wasn't some deep intellectual and emotional bond between the two of them long before they had sex? Were you there?
Yet you are willing to put some poor 44-year old woman behind bars for 20 years, on the assumption that she was the "predator" and her student was the "victim"?
You little bleeding-hart puritan and sanctimonious, self-righteous monster...
Have you been completely brainwashed by binary Hollywood propaganda and cliches ?
Do you understand how far removed your petty moral outrage is from the plight of 4 & 5 year olds being trafficked, abused, tortured and occasionally, killed by the psychopaths who govern us?
Of course it is off-topic...
projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused
Wow, you are completely fucked up! You're one of the predators we're fighting against.
Well, now that I know, I won't waste anymore time talking to you. If there's a shred of hope, I keep at it, but you lost your moral compass in that swamp.
view the rest of the comments →
ArmedExorcist ago
Again, how is this Pizzagate related?
Says who, since when and how so? Perhaps it depends on who is 'you' and who are the 'students'? Remember, Pizzagare is about some specific, abhorrent crime committed agains children. It concerns specific events, recurrent themes, MO and clearly identified actors. Vulnerable and fragile as they might be, 17 and 18 year old boys are not children by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to discuss the ethical implications of students/teachers sexual relationship bring this nonsense elsewhere. Don't dilute the research! @Millennial_Falcon, @Vindicator how much further OT could one go? Mods, please delete.
quantokitty ago
Not sure what's going on here. The normalization and changing of laws has always been part of pizzagate. Teachers having sex with students never had to be defended before, but now it's no longer taboo because of a law ensuring "slaves" obtained the same rights as everyone else?
If you really believe a 44-year-old teacher having sex with a 17-year-old student is okay, guess what? You may already be normalized. Nothing anyone can do about that, BUT the point is that a precedent has been set. A judge knocked down the criminal penalty for a teacher having sex with a student. So today, it was a 17-yr-old. Maybe next week, it'll be a 16-year-old. How about a 15-yr-old? Remember that Bill Maher said that the only thing wrong with Mary Kay La Tourneau having sex with a student was that there weren't videos of it.
This is tantamount to the push for children to be autonomous in deciding their sexuality at four. Because if they can legally push for a child to decide his sexuality, they can then push for them to decide whether or not they can have sex.
I'm surprised @Millenial_Falcon and/or @Vindicator took it down. Could it be reposted under proof of "normalization" and allowing it to become mainstream for teachers and children to have sexual relationships? That seems a huge story and pizzagate related, no?
ArmedExorcist ago
"Children" is not a legal term. The minimum age of consent in most states is 16. Any consensual sexual relationship with a person 16 and above is therefore legal. "Normal" means different things to different people. So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story. Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly. We live in a society where perversion, vice and depravity have become already the "norm". Start by outlawing pervasive pornography, militant f@gotry, hysterical feminism, sodomy, gay marriage, conveyor-belt abortions of convenience, satanism, sexualisation of kids and mixed restrooms. Then we'll see who a hormone ridden 18-year old teenager can and can't have sex with. EDIT: Oh. And Pizzagate btw is about something entirely different. It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
quantokitty ago
This. This is what I mean. Why would @Vindicator or @Millenial_Falcon pay attention to anything you have to say and delete a post when you are completely wrong about everything and see things through a very jaded, very narrow perspective?
"MINOR" is a legal term, definition, and class of human being. While the laws of consent vary, the current law for MINOR is (from Wikipedia):
From the Free Legal Dictionary:
This resolves the need for me to follow this suggestion:
This is clearly a misunderstanding and corruption of the current statutes. The age of consent varies from state-to-state, but even where age is say 17, there may still be prosecution when a grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants. This means that in two seventeen-year-olds usually can, and do, engage in sexual relations, but that if one of the seventeen-year-olds were blackmailing or bullying the other party into performing sexual acts, that it is not consensual as undue pressure and coercion has been applied.
In the case of an adult (also a legal term) engaging in sex with a minor (yes, it is a legal term so maybe you can petition whoever the hell you want to ... maybe Pedosta?), the relationship may become suspect in thinking external factors were applied to said minor in enticing that "child" to engage in a sexual act. A teacher/student would fit the model of one such relationship where coercion could be applied. An employer/employee could be another. After all, the targeted victim shows up for work every day and is ripe for being taken advantage of. A coach/athlete would be another situation.
Another complete misinterpretation and marginalization/normalization of what went on here. It's not an "ethical" issue, it was a criminal one. From the article:
It was a felony! A F-E-L-O-N-Y, not an ethical issue or whether you should or should not allow a person nobody likes that much into the soiree you're holding at the local eatery. So now that barrier is gone. It was there to protect students from lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students. The teachers are there to teach and the students should be there to learn. The classroom is not a singles bar and teachers should not be scouting for the victim. Which means it's this:
If we take away that barrier, and it was taken away, it means the destruction of childhood through the uninhibited predation of horny, overage, rapist/molestors who hide the element of grooming and coercion under the argument that the relationship is "consensual" when it is anything but. Parents are not sending their sons and daughters to school to be raped by teachers. And the fact that the judge used the case of this "seventeen-year-old" to open the floodgate is exactly what was needed to get people like you chiming in and defending this.
This is about precedent. This is about the abolishment of a law protecting childhood and innocence, something that is within the realm and boundaries of pizzagate.
Self-righteous, bigoted members of the pizzagate community have the right to espouse their ridiculous, rigid opinions, but for a post central to a lot of the issues pizzagate is dealing to be taken down because of one such member flagging moderators is outrageous.
This community is about sharing information, not controlling and defining what someone should or should not post because it conflicts or is a variable on the central theme. This post was and is very pertinent to the subject we're dealing with and I'm sorry you're so entrenched in projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused.
ArmedExorcist ago
I like your fervor and your research work on voat in general. But as many on this sub, you seem to have a hard time keeping an objective perspective.
I know how that feels. Suddenly everything around you looks connected by million invisible threads to Pizzagate. It's called availability heuristic and confirmation bias. It's a problem for research and clear thinking, since it takes away focus, inserts randomness and results invariably in credibility loss. All that Alabama judge said was that a law criminalizing consensual teacher-student sex is unconstitutional. The US Constitution being the ultimate measure of what's legal or not.
You know virtually nothing about the case, except from what you've read in some internet article. But you are quick to assume that the teachers involved could be only
There could be no presumption that the sexual relationship between two consenting adults implies necessarily
in the same way not all sex is presumed rape. Except of course, by deranged American feminists.
17 and 18 year old can also be lecherous, sneaky and manipulative and as capable of "power" abuse as their teachers.
How do you know that it was not the male student who seduced a lonely, aging, depressive female teacher who badly needed a man's attention and love? How do you know that there wasn't some deep intellectual and emotional bond between the two of them long before they had sex? Were you there?
Yet you are willing to put some poor 44-year old woman behind bars for 20 years, on the assumption that she was the "predator" and her student was the "victim"?
You little bleeding-hart puritan and sanctimonious, self-righteous monster... Have you been completely brainwashed by binary Hollywood propaganda and cliches ?
Do you understand how far removed your petty moral outrage is from the plight of 4 & 5 year olds being trafficked, abused, tortured and occasionally, killed by the psychopaths who govern us?
Of course it is off-topic...
... and I'm afraid so are you.
quantokitty ago
Wow, you are completely fucked up! You're one of the predators we're fighting against.
Well, now that I know, I won't waste anymore time talking to you. If there's a shred of hope, I keep at it, but you lost your moral compass in that swamp.
ArmedExorcist ago
Just curious, what makes me a "predator"?